So, after an equal opportunity class on next month being LGBT awareness , myself and a co-worker were in a discussion on gay marriage. He made a statement that struck me as odd, and rather bigoted, however he seems to defend the statement as not meaning what I think it meant. I would like opinions on how you would interpret this statement. I will quote it exactly to ensure I am not swaying one way or the other.
Please don't get inflammatory, I am just wondering if I am wrong in interpreting this statement in the way I do. What would it mean to you?
or
I do not believe homosexuals should be permitted to marry.
Note: that does not make him bigoted. You have to then find out why he doesn't believe it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: It means they probably don't have to do Jury Duty.
Yes, after he began explaining that I was misinterpreting his statement looking for hate where there is none. I don't want to say the whole conversation, Im just wondering how you would interpret this statement at face value.
I took it as the above poster, he does not believe gay people should be allowed to be married. He said he doesn't believe they should, but that the statement does not make him a bigot or prejudiced.
I have my own views on any group or person who thinks one person should be allowed to do one thing, and another should not, all things being equal, when basing it on orientation, race, gender etc.
It was in reference to same sex marriage based on the original post.
So would you call BS if he said that it was just his belief that he would never marry another man. Because that is what he was saying that statement meant. I am saying that at face value, that is not even close to what that statement means.
Well he could have a very contractual definition that marriage is a contract for inheritence purposes of children, to pass lands and title.
he could have a literal religious objection, that per his religion gays cannot be married, any more than he is permitted to eat pork. He's not bigoted against pork, he just can't eat it.
Now if he say they'z be evilsz and cursed by god well that might be an indicator of personal bias...
redleger wrote: So would you call BS if he said that it was just his belief that he would never marry another man. Because that is what he was saying that statement meant. I am saying that at face value, that is not even close to what that statement means.
You are correct. Taken very literally it could mean "I won't marry another man" and nothing else, but we all know that the vast majority of the time when someone says "I don't believe in gay marriage" they intend that belief to apply to other people.
Then I will repeat my post.
"Well he could have a very contractual definition that marriage is a contract for inheritence purposes of children, to pass lands and title.
he could have a literal religious objection, that per his religion gays cannot be married, any more than he is permitted to eat pork. He's not bigoted against pork, he just can't eat it. "
Devoid of all context, I'd assume he meant gays should not have the right to be married. However, it's also possible he means that he doesn't believe in gay marriage, in that it's not a special institution and merely a normal human right that is irrespective of your sexuality; it's just "marriage".
I'm being a little optimistic there with the latter option.
He also made a statement that he can speak in as general a term as possible, because your interpretation of his statement is you assigning value to his statement. He saw a therapist with his ex wife, and now he thinks anyone take meaning from his very general statements, you are assigning value or emotion where none exists, and therefore he purposely speaks very generally. he likes to poke the bear a lot. I am ok with this, I like poking the bear too, but not in human rights issues.
He did specifically admit though, "marriage" is between man and a women, however a civial union, with all the benefits of marriage is ok between anyone. He just wants "Marriage" to belong to man and woman for the purpose of making children, all the normal religions stuff. So he isn't opposed to gay people.
He also made the statement later, he doesn't believe in being gay. At that point I think he was just trying to rile me up, but I know what that statement would mean to a reasonable person, so hence this thread.
He then made a statement he doesn't believe in mixing races. At which I had to walk away. We are good friends, but he is a habitual line stepper.
at face value, these statements would, in my opinion, be taken as inflammatory, prejudicial, and racist. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't just looking for hate, or if it was within reason to extract that meaning.
redleger wrote: He just wants "Marriage" to belong to man and woman for the purpose of making children, all the normal religions stuff. So he isn't opposed to gay people. (snip)
Just wanted to make sure I wasn't just looking for hate, or if it was within reason to extract that meaning.
Sure, he doesn't hate them and isn't opposed to them, as long as they don't get too uppity and accept their places as second-class citizens.
redleger wrote: He just wants "Marriage" to belong to man and woman for the purpose of making children, all the normal religions stuff. So he isn't opposed to gay people. (snip)
Just wanted to make sure I wasn't just looking for hate, or if it was within reason to extract that meaning.
Sure, he doesn't hate them and isn't opposed to them, as long as they don't get too uppity and accept their places as second-class citizens.
That is almost exactly the point I made ironically. He then called me a bigot lol.
Just because he doesnt believe in gay marriage, does not mean that he wouldnt be ok with civil unions or some equivalent.
It does not necessarily mean he is a bigot or being bigoted.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I guess my opinion on the matter is that people automatically assume the worst and jump to the B word when they hear a phrase like that....it is like a knee jerk reaction.
I mean, replace gay marriage with: Aliens, God, Mohammed, Buddha, Bigfoot, etc. and you don't automatically judge someone. But put in anything to do with LGBT andbits instand damnation.
TheMeanDM wrote: Just because he doesnt believe in gay marriage, does not mean that he wouldnt be ok with civil unions or some equivalent.
It does not necessarily mean he is a bigot or being bigoted.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I guess my opinion on the matter is that people automatically assume the worst and jump to the B word when they hear a phrase like that....it is like a knee jerk reaction.
I mean, replace gay marriage with: Aliens, God, Mohammed, Buddha, Bigfoot, etc. and you don't automatically judge someone. But put in anything to do with LGBT andbits instand damnation.
Uh, one of these is not like the others. I have physical proof of LGBT. I can even get you on the phone with one. Can you do the same with the others? I think you owe the LGBT a little more respect than that.
MrDwhitey wrote: I've found bigots often call the people pointing out their bigotry, bigots.
Bigotry is when someone is intolerant towards an opinion that is different than yours.
So if you call someone a bigot because you perceive that they are intolerant of one of your views, they can also call you a bigot because you are intolerant of their views.
Frazzled wrote: Then I will repeat my post.
"Well he could have a very contractual definition that marriage is a contract for inheritence purposes of children, to pass lands and title.
he could have a literal religious objection, that per his religion gays cannot be married, any more than he is permitted to eat pork. He's not bigoted against pork, he just can't eat it. "
When dealing with people, both of those reasons are rooted in bigotry.
The reason people would bring Bigot to the foreground with gay marriage and not with those...
Not believing in God myself does not prevent you from believing in God and privately worshiping. A thousand people could not believe in God and you would still be able to.
If a thousand people oppose gay marriage, they can prevent a gay person from getting married.
If someone says they believe in aliens, do you automatically assume they are a crackpot crazy?
If someone says they believe in bigfoot, do you think they are automatically a lunatic?
If someone says they believe in God, do you automatically declare them delusional?
If you answer yes to those....perhaps you need to be less judgmental of people.
All I am saying is that you shouldn't automatically rush to judgment of someone's opinion or belief based on one statement with zero explaination or context behind it.
TheMeanDM wrote: If someone says they believe in aliens, do you automatically assume they are a crackpot crazy?
If someone says they believe in bigfoot, do you think they are automatically a lunatic?
If someone says they believe in God, do you automatically declare them delusional?
If you answer yes to those....perhaps you need to be less judgmental of people.
All I am saying is that you shouldn't automatically rush to judgment of someone's opinion or belief based on one statement with zero explination or context behind it.
No to all of the above, but I accept that people are complex things.
I have friends who hold strong views that I don't, and those are their views. I would not say they are bigots. I would say it is bigoted behaviour to inhibit someone else's life based on your personal beliefs.
The reason people would bring Bigot to the foreground with gay marriage and not with those...
Not believing in God myself does not prevent you from believing in God and privately worshiping. A thousand people could not believe in God and you would still be able to.
If a thousand people oppose gay marriage, they can prevent a gay person from getting married.
Reverse that:
If a thousand people do not believe in god, they can prevent religios people from....(insert religious stuff).
Frazzled wrote: Then I will repeat my post.
"Well he could have a very contractual definition that marriage is a contract for inheritence purposes of children, to pass lands and title.
he could have a literal religious objection, that per his religion gays cannot be married, any more than he is permitted to eat pork. He's not bigoted against pork, he just can't eat it. "
When dealing with people, both of those reasons are rooted in bigotry.
Um...NOOO?
Please refresh yourself on the definition of bigotry.
In English the word "bigot" refers to a prejudiced, closed-minded person who is intolerant or hateful toward people of a different group, especially racial or religious.[1][2][3]
Neither of the above is intolerant or hateful.
For example, myself. Gambling. I refrain from office pools and such because the Bar viewed gambling as violating ethics. I am not bigoted against gambling, but I am bound by an code of conduct that says it violates an agreed upon code of conduct.
The first is an assumption of marriage as contractual law to pass inheritence to children. newsflash but that really was marriage in the West. Its outdated now with modern legal codes and science allowing the creation of children in a gay marriage, but that doesn't make it bigotted.
The second, like my code instance, is a religious code. In this instance he is making a plain jane statement per the code he belongs to. WE have family friends who were opposed to a divorced person remarrying. They've stayed friends and bear no malice, but thats part of their religious code. You mixed that up with people who are using religion TO HIDE their own bigotry.
It really is no different than "I do not believe in the death penalty."
"I do not believe in shooting people."
So it is a preference, it could lead to "I would actively oppose gay marriage.".
It at least firmly places it in the realm of "belief" than a logical choice.
I look at it the same as a legal and emotional "partnership" and really does not have to be placed in the trappings of religion.
If it is a religious belief, then he may have strong beliefs in it and that's his conviction.
There's also the camp that feels that the State shouldn't get involved in what the Church does (making gay marriage laws) - LGBT people can go to city hall and have a ceremony, but forcing a priest to do something he may not want to do is pretty authoritarian. Considering it's Leftists doing this, this is not unusual. This is what authors/political commentators like Ben Shapiro usually argue in their debates and lectures.
Any other train of argument is just baseless in most cases. I don't think anyone can provide a real solid argument as to why two people of the same gender can't live together and be exclusive forever. That's all marriage really is aside from the legal bindings - but from what I understand the gay community got all those same legal rights and everything a long time ago, the Civil Partnership Act in 2004 in the UK for example. Not sure about the States, though.
Milo Yiannopoulos is gay and he debated another gay man and the argument against gay marriage laws in the UK went something like this: "Gays already had all the same rights as married people (Civil Partnership Act) except for the religious aspects. They used to sit in the back seat of the bus until they finally got a seat in the same front row, but that wasn't good enough for them, they wouldn't stop until they were sitting in the same seat."
Personally I don't care what happens as I'm not religious nor do I care what people do in their private sexual lives. I'm just explaining some of the rationale people use for 'not believing it' as the OP asked.
The reason people would bring Bigot to the foreground with gay marriage and not with those...
Not believing in God myself does not prevent you from believing in God and privately worshiping. A thousand people could not believe in God and you would still be able to.
If a thousand people oppose gay marriage, they can prevent a gay person from getting married.
Reverse that:
If a thousand people do not believe in god, they can prevent religios people from....(insert religious stuff).
It goes both ways.
Gay Marriage is a physical act. Belief in these things isn't.
We weren't discussing, "I don't believe you should be able to worship God." but that belief itself cannot be stopped by lack of belief in others.
redleger wrote: He just wants "Marriage" to belong to man and woman for the purpose of making children, all the normal religions stuff.
Why do so many people equate 'marriage' with 'having children'...?
Does he also believe that couples who can't or don't want to have children shouldn't be allowed to marry?
The simple fact is that marriage was a state business long before the church appropriated it. Marriage is not a term exclusive to a religious ceremony, and the Christian Church shouldn't get to dictate who can and can't do it anywhere other than amongst their own members.
Although it's also worth pointing out that I don't believe in 'gay marriage' either. I believe in marriage. I don't believe that the gender of those involved is any of my business, outside of my own marriage.
PrehistoricUFO wrote: If it is a religious belief, then he may have strong beliefs in it and that's his conviction.
There's also the camp that feels that the State shouldn't get involved in what the Church does (making gay marriage laws) - LGBT people can go to city hall and have a ceremony, but forcing a priest to do something he may not want to do is pretty authoritarian. Considering it's Leftists doing this, this is not unusual. This is what authors/political commentators like Ben Shapiro usually argue in their debates and lectures.
Any other train of argument is just baseless in most cases. I don't think anyone can provide a real solid argument as to why two people of the same gender can't live together and be exclusive forever. That's all marriage really is aside from the legal bindings - but from what I understand the gay community got all those same legal rights and everything a long time ago, the Civil Partnership Act in 2004 in the UK for example. Not sure about the States, though.
Milo Yiannopoulos is gay and he debated another gay man and the argument against gay marriage laws in the UK went something like this: "Gays already had all the same rights as married people (Civil Partnership Act) except for the religious aspects. They used to sit in the back seat of the bus until they finally got a seat in the same front row, but that wasn't good enough for them, they wouldn't stop until they were sitting in the same seat."
Personally I don't care what happens as I'm not religious nor do I care what people do in their private sexual lives. I'm just explaining some of the rationale people use for 'not believing it' as the OP asked.
Can't speak for the UK, but the main push in the US for gay marriage has been not only equality, but the benefits marriage garners as well. There have been a lot of cases of couples being denied the same rights (power of attorney, military benefits, presence in the emergency room, etc.) because they were civil partners and not legally married.
Can't speak for the UK, but the main push in the US for gay marriage has been not only equality, but the benefits marriage garners as well. There have been a lot of cases of couples being denied the same rights (power of attorney, military benefits, presence in the emergency room, etc.) because they were civil partners and not legally married.
Yeah I suppose in that regard the States are behind on the issue because in the UK: "In 2004 the Civil Partnership Act was passed and came into effect in December 2005. It created civil partnerships, which gave same-sex couples who entered into them the same rights and responsibilities of marriage. These partnerships were called 'gay marriage' by some of the British media"
Please refresh yourself on the definition of bigotry.
In English the word "bigot" refers to a prejudiced, closed-minded person who is intolerant or hateful toward people of a different group, especially racial or religious.[1][2][3]
Neither of the above is intolerant or hateful.
For example, myself. Gambling. I refrain from office pools and such because the Bar viewed gambling as violating ethics. I am not bigoted against gambling, but I am bound by an code of conduct that says it violates an agreed upon code of conduct.
The first is an assumption of marriage as contractual law to pass inheritence to children. newsflash but that really was marriage in the West. Its outdated now with modern legal codes and science allowing the creation of children in a gay marriage, but that doesn't make it bigotted.
The second, like my code instance, is a religious code. In this instance he is making a plain jane statement per the code he belongs to. WE have family friends who were opposed to a divorced person remarrying. They've stayed friends and bear no malice, but thats part of their religious code. You mixed that up with people who are using religion TO HIDE their own bigotry.
This is absolutely brilliantly stated. I wish more people understood that just because someone disagrees with something, it does not necessarily mean that they are bigoted, hateful or intolerant.
There is another thread in the OT forum that needs a dose of this in spades.
Frazzled wrote: Then I will repeat my post.
"Well he could have a very contractual definition that marriage is a contract for inheritence purposes of children, to pass lands and title.
he could have a literal religious objection, that per his religion gays cannot be married, any more than he is permitted to eat pork. He's not bigoted against pork, he just can't eat it. "
When dealing with people, both of those reasons are rooted in bigotry.
Um...NOOO?
Please refresh yourself on the definition of bigotry.
In English the word "bigot" refers to a prejudiced, closed-minded person who is intolerant or hateful toward people of a different group, especially racial or religious.[1][2][3]
Neither of the above is intolerant or hateful.
For example, myself. Gambling. I refrain from office pools and such because the Bar viewed gambling as violating ethics. I am not bigoted against gambling, but I am bound by an code of conduct that says it violates an agreed upon code of conduct.
The first is an assumption of marriage as contractual law to pass inheritence to children. newsflash but that really was marriage in the West. Its outdated now with modern legal codes and science allowing the creation of children in a gay marriage, but that doesn't make it bigotted.
The second, like my code instance, is a religious code. In this instance he is making a plain jane statement per the code he belongs to. WE have family friends who were opposed to a divorced person remarrying. They've stayed friends and bear no malice, but thats part of their religious code. You mixed that up with people who are using religion TO HIDE their own bigotry.
And assuming that gay couples can't raise children. Plus I have yet to see someone who is anti-gay marriage want to insist on procreation for the marriage to be legal. Contract claim based on actual reason is invalid.
Religious reason has the original tenets developed because of anti-gay bigotry. Thus claiming religious reason IS rooted in bigotry especially when you try to force it on someone else.
I find it impossible to believe that someone using those excuses isn't looking for a way to try to make bigotry acceptable
And assuming that gay couples can't raise children. Plus I have yet to see someone who is anti-gay marriage want to insist on procreation for the marriage to be legal. Contract claim based on actual reason is invalid.
You're ignoring history. That was the purpose of marriage. Indeed historically a lack of children was a valid reason to annul a marriage. DOn't forget historically life wasn't gaks and giggles. You grew up young, got married young, and died young. As noted I agree this argument is outdated, but I made it as at one point it was a valid argument.
Religious reason has the original tenets developed because of anti-gay bigotry.
Objection your honor, argument without supporting evidence. Sustained.
Thus claiming religious reason IS rooted in bigotry especially when you try to force it on someone else.
However the OP was not noted as trying to force it onto someone else but in response to a question.
I find it impossible to believe that someone using those excuses isn't looking for a way to try to make bigotry acceptable
Because you are bigoted against them. Your posting history denotes a hostility towards religion. It would be a bit of personal growth if you reflected on that, and how you could move beyond it.
Religious reason has the original tenets developed because of anti-gay bigotry. Thus claiming religious reason IS rooted in bigotry especially when you try to force it on someone else.
I find it impossible to believe that someone using those excuses isn't looking for a way to try to make bigotry acceptable
This is a very interesting point. However, it is basically saying that whomever wrote the Bible, wrote it because of homophobia to a certain extent.
Yes there are many things that the Bible states, but it also states specifically that it is a sin to lay with someone of your own gender. Does it not?
Religious reason has the original tenets developed because of anti-gay bigotry. Thus claiming religious reason IS rooted in bigotry especially when you try to force it on someone else.
I find it impossible to believe that someone using those excuses isn't looking for a way to try to make bigotry acceptable
This is a very interesting point. However, it is basically saying that whomever wrote the Bible, wrote it because of homophobia to a certain extent.
Yes there are many things that the Bible states, but it also states specifically that it is a sin to lay with someone of your own gender. Does it not?
The Bile says a lot of things, including wearing fabrics of more than one material is a sin and pre-marital sex is a sin. The Bible is more a general guidelines than hard rules.
The Bile says a lot of things, including wearing fabrics of more than one material is a sin and pre-marital sex is a sin. The Bible is more a general guidelines than hard rules.
Religious reason has the original tenets developed because of anti-gay bigotry. Thus claiming religious reason IS rooted in bigotry especially when you try to force it on someone else.
I find it impossible to believe that someone using those excuses isn't looking for a way to try to make bigotry acceptable
This is a very interesting point. However, it is basically saying that whomever wrote the Bible, wrote it because of homophobia to a certain extent.
Yes there are many things that the Bible states, but it also states specifically that it is a sin to lay with someone of your own gender. Does it not?
Marriage only became attached to religion many many many years after the bible was written. The council of Verona in the 1100's is the first time marriage was codified as sacrement. There is also the council of Trent which saw marriages validated only in front of two witnesses and a priest.
Like most things the church really got involved when there was money and control up for grabs.
The Bile says a lot of things, including wearing fabrics of more than one material is a sin and pre-marital sex is a sin. The Bible is more a general guidelines than hard rules.
To YOU. To others it is the literal word of Dog.
That's great and all, just don't go getting your church all mixed up in my state.
jreilly89 wrote: The Bible is more a general guidelines than hard rules.
I absolutely agree with you. Many don't, however. Therein lies the problem.
No, the problem is people mixing church and state. I can believe whatever I want, but passing laws that all vegans should be beheaded is rather wrong, I'd say.
jreilly89 wrote: No, the problem is people mixing church and state. I can believe whatever I want, but passing laws that all vegans should be beheaded is rather wrong, I'd say.
A rather dramatic straw-man argument.
I must admit that "Sharia law" is where the intent is NO divide of church and state.
I think with a bit of digging you would find many documents of the state that refer to God.
Roman Catholicism is rather imbedded in Canadian law.
Few countries would be completely clear of religious principles included in their bills or acts.
I feel the original intent to support "having" children could apply: adoption or artificial insemination can result in raising a child and believe me: I would have difficulty raising my kids on my own (I could do it, but it would have some measure of hardship).
To give those wanting to raise children every chance is a good thing: it is one of the least selfish decisions you can make.
A religious friend of mine said almost those exact words to me on the topic the other day. After challenging him on it, it turned out what he meant was that he didn't consider gay marriage a 'real' marriage because it fell outside the scope of his religious definition.
Of course I further challenged him as to whether all marriages throughout history- especially those that predated Christianity- were legitimate in his eyes. Apparently you don't need to believe in God or make any such vows, you just need to be a heterosexual couple. Which makes no sense to me but eh, if religion made sense I'd be a believer.
Your co-worker could mean that his view of marriage entails a religious dimension transcendent of what any given civil authority recognizes as valid. That is what I mean when I say, "I don't believe in gay marriage." (Catholic here.) At the same time, I have no problem with a government recognizing same-sex couples as being married for the usual non-religious purposes which governments recognize marriage.
My personal religious view is that there is a Biblical form of marriage that consists of a covenant between God, the husband, and the wife.
My personal political view is that there is a non-religious form of marriage where the government grants benefits to a couple that gets married.
These two views are not mutually exclusive, in my opinion, and the way I see it I have these two forms of marriages that actually exist independently from each other. If tomorrow the State of Oklahoma somehow finds out that there was a screw-up with my marriage license and I wasn't actually legally married due to a technicality, I wouldn't feel that my spiritual marriage would be any less valid. If I were to turn away from God and my wife and abandon my marriage vows, but never legally divorce, then I would feel that my spiritual marriage was broken but that my legal marriage would still exist.
I also want to note that my religious view regarding marriage as a covenant between God/man/woman is a personal view, and as such it has no bearing on what I think the government should do and I don't think that government should be able to restrict marriage based on what I personally believe would be wrong for myself.
I have also always been very honest that back in 2004 I voted for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in Oklahoma, and that I have grown in my understanding of my spirituality and how it should interact with politics since that vote and that I regret my part in causing anguish to a large number of Oklahomans.
There are some broad possibilities. It could mean he views marriage as a religious affair and his religion does not condone homosexuality. It could mean he views marriage as a social construct for producing children and raising families, adoption being a separate issue from marriage. It could also mean he views marriage as an institution going back some six thousand years or more that has previously been reserved for a man and a woman (not addressing polygamy here) and he sees no reason for it to be changed. Or he could have some other reason.
My question is, why are you so upset about his beliefs?
MrDwhitey wrote: I've found bigots often call the people pointing out their bigotry, bigots.
Bigotry is when someone is intolerant towards an opinion that is different than yours.
So if you call someone a bigot because you perceive that they are intolerant of one of your views, they can also call you a bigot because you are intolerant of their views.
They could if you were intolerant of their views. But it's fair game to assume someone who doesn't "believe" in gay marriage prejudiced as their opinion isn't based on rational experience or reason. It's likely it's based on something their religious faction believes, or they're not comfortable with homosexuality.
If one isn't willing to accept all manner of stupidity and idiocy from others apparently one is a bigot, which of course seems like a silly defense someone with bigoted ideas would accuse others of, but apparently is how it works. Complete tolerance of intolerance is the only way to be tolerant.
d-usa wrote: These two views are not mutually exclusive, in my opinion
I think this is where a lot of people can agree. But there are some people who are really, really offended by the notion that, if you invite me to your gay wedding then I will come, I will bring you a present, I will even feel genuinely happy for you and wish you and your spouse the enjoyment of many happy years, but yet it will always be just a "marriage" (with the quotation marks) in my heart of hearts. To pull it away from the issue of sexual orientation, the same thing applies about a divorced person getting "remarried." So in my mind, the courteous and therefore right thing to do is simply keep what is in my heart of hearts where it is in that sort of situation. But it's the hypothetical aspect of it, I guess you'd say, that people object to because the real argument comes down to are ABC beliefs the right ones or XYZ, even considering it is perfectly possible for people with both beliefs to coexist peaceably and courteously. The thirst for that conflict is what really baffles me. In that same vein, here's a great question:
Breotan wrote: My question is, why are you so upset about his beliefs?
d-usa wrote: These two views are not mutually exclusive, in my opinion
I think this is where a lot of people can agree. But there are some people who are really, really offended by the notion that, if you invite me to your gay wedding then I will come, I will bring you a present, I will even feel genuinely happy for you and wish you and your spouse the enjoyment of many happy years, but yet it will always be just a "marriage" (with the quotation marks) in my heart of hearts. To pull it away from the issue of sexual orientation, the same thing applies about a divorced person getting "remarried." So in my mind, the courteous and therefore right thing to do is simply keep what is in my heart of hearts where it is. But it's the hypothetical aspect of it, I guess you'd say, that people object to because the real argument comes down to are ABC beliefs the right ones or XYZ, even considering it is perfectly possible for people with both beliefs to coexist peaceably and courteously. The thirst for that conflict is what really baffles me. In that same vein, here's a great question:
Breotan wrote: My question is, why are you so upset about his beliefs?
I think that's a pretty good summary.
It's okay to be a society where people agree to disagree on things on a personal level, while being tolerant of others.
Right now we still have people who are very vocal on either being on Team "Gay Marriage Is Wrong And Illegal" or Team "Agree That Gay Marriage Is OK And Legal". I think that more and more people are moving to Team "I Think It's Wrong, But Whatever Floats Your Boat, Legal Rights For Everyone", and that team may even be the majority by now, but the "it shouldn't be legal" and "you shouldn't think it's bad" crowds are still making enough noise to keep the conflict going.
If belief alone was the thing I doubt it would be an issue but often it seems those beliefs turn into something more, like support for anti-gay legislation. It can have an impact and isn't just passive.
Well, d-usa, as I often say the side that requires more people to actively care for longer is always going to lose.
Ahtman, I was more getting at the idea that when we're talking about a political conflict we're talking about (at least) two sets of beliefs - and all the sides tend toward fanatical (like hunting for opportunities to evince self-righteous indignation) when it comes to pushing the agenda that allegedly follows from those beliefs. All of this despite the fact that "on the ground" it is perfectly possible for peaceable and courteous co-existence.
Civil rights movements have been successful enough that most people acknowledge that discrimination is bad. Sadly however, that's just led to a lot of people coming up with ways to rationalize their discrimination as not being discrimination.
redleger wrote: So, after an equal opportunity class on next month being LGBT awareness , myself and a co-worker were in a discussion on gay marriage. He made a statement that struck me as odd, and rather bigoted, however he seems to defend the statement as not meaning what I think it meant. I would like opinions on how you would interpret this statement. I will quote it exactly to ensure I am not swaying one way or the other.
Please don't get inflammatory, I am just wondering if I am wrong in interpreting this statement in the way I do. What would it mean to you?
"I do not believe in gay marriage"
How would you interpret that?
It clearly must mean he doesn't believe it exists like raptor jesus and the flying spaghetti monster. You should totally tell him all of them exist. It will change his life.
But in all seriousness i think it sounds like what you think. It's usually about religious reasons. He probably doesn't even hate gay people just his religion tells him it's naughty so he falls in line. Ask him about it. Find out for yourself. I mean i once asked a girl that seriously considered being a nun at one point if she didn't like gay people. She said she liked them just doesn't want them to be married.
d-usa wrote: It's okay to be a society where people agree to disagree on things on a personal level, while being tolerant of others.
Sure, in some cases disagreement is fine. The problem is that, in this case, the "being gay is wrong" side does not have a credible argument, independent of whether or not they expect other people to follow their beliefs. We should criticize beliefs that are not well supported, and not just say "be tolerant" as a way to negate criticism.
d-usa wrote: It's okay to be a society where people agree to disagree on things on a personal level, while being tolerant of others.
Sure, in some cases disagreement is fine. The problem is that, in this case, the "being gay is wrong" side does not have a credible argument, independent of whether or not they expect other people to follow their beliefs. We should criticize beliefs that are not well supported, and not just say "be tolerant" as a way to negate criticism.
By no credible argument, are you refering to the fact certain people follow a set of rules written in an ancient book and because you think that book is bologna, you think their argument is not credible?
d-usa wrote: It's okay to be a society where people agree to disagree on things on a personal level, while being tolerant of others.
Sure, in some cases disagreement is fine. The problem is that, in this case, the "being gay is wrong" side does not have a credible argument, independent of whether or not they expect other people to follow their beliefs. We should criticize beliefs that are not well supported, and not just say "be tolerant" as a way to negate criticism.
By no credible argument, are you refering to the fact certain people follow a set of rules written in an ancient book and because you think that book is bologna, you think their argument is not credible?
Personally, I wouldn't put it quite as strongly as 'not credible'... but there is growing support even within the Christian church for the notion that ancient book is nowhere near as clear on the issue as people have been led to believe.
As with so many things, there are various passages that go either way, and most of the 'against' arguments come from the old testament (which also includes such gems as forbidding the wearing of mixed fabrics, the cutting of beards or hair on the sides of your head, or women wearing pants) which many feel was all thrown out when Jesus came along and said 'Forget all those old rules, just don't be dicks to each other...'
But even if you do believe that the Bible forbids homosexuality, that doesn't give anyone a valid argument for why people not of their faith should be covered by that rule. We don't seem to see Christians arguing that nobody on the planet should be allowed to eat pork, or pick up grapes. And yet for some reason, so many seem to feel that it's their place to cast judgement (which, IIRC, is another thing that the Bible tells them to not do, being God's job and all...) on other peoples' relationships.
Tactical_Spam wrote: By no credible argument, are you refering to the fact certain people follow a set of rules written in an ancient book and because you think that book is bologna, you think their argument is not credible?
Pretty much. Their argument for why being gay is wrong essentially comes down to "because I said so" because none of the supporting evidence holds up to critical analysis. We know that no religion's texts have a credible claim to divine inspiration, and if you take away the religious arguments there's nothing left. I can say "Peregrinism says that not being gay is the worst of all sins" all I want, but nobody is ever going to take it seriously (nor should they!).
By no credible argument, are you refering to the fact certain people follow a set of rules written in an ancient book and because you think that book is bologna, you think their argument is not credible?
Personally, I wouldn't put it quite as strongly as 'not credible'... but there is growing support even within the Christian church for the notion that ancient book is nowhere near as clear on the issue as people have been led to believe.
As with so many things, there are various passages that go either way, and most of the 'against' arguments come from the old testament (which also includes such gems as forbidding the wearing of mixed fabrics, the cutting of beards or hair on the sides of your head, or women wearing pants) which many feel was all thrown out when Jesus came along and said 'Forget all those old rules, just don't be dicks to each other...'
But even if you do believe that the Bible forbids homosexuality, that doesn't give anyone a valid argument for why people not of their faith should be covered by that rule. We don't seem to see Christians arguing that nobody on the planet should be allowed to eat pork, or pick up grapes. And yet for some reason, so many seem to feel that it's their place to cast judgement (which, IIRC, is another thing that the Bible tells them to not do, being God's job and all...) on other peoples' relationships.
It's weird... and rather saddening.
I am led to believe it is rather clear about the issue, but delving into that would be stray into heated off-topic territory and I would not like any warnings from Mods.
redleger wrote: So, after an equal opportunity class on next month being LGBT awareness , myself and a co-worker were in a discussion on gay marriage. He made a statement that struck me as odd, and rather bigoted, however he seems to defend the statement as not meaning what I think it meant. I would like opinions on how you would interpret this statement. I will quote it exactly to ensure I am not swaying one way or the other.
Please don't get inflammatory, I am just wondering if I am wrong in interpreting this statement in the way I do. What would it mean to you?
"I do not believe in gay marriage"
How would you interpret that?
In this day and time, it would be obvious to me. Your friend doesn't personally believe in homosexual matrimony.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PrehistoricUFO wrote: If it is a religious belief, then he may have strong beliefs in it and that's his conviction.
There's also the camp that feels that the State shouldn't get involved in what the Church does (making gay marriage laws) - LGBT people can go to city hall and have a ceremony, but forcing a priest to do something he may not want to do is pretty authoritarian. Considering it's Leftists doing this, this is not unusual. This is what authors/political commentators like Ben Shapiro usually argue in their debates and lectures.
Any other train of argument is just baseless in most cases. I don't think anyone can provide a real solid argument as to why two people of the same gender can't live together and be exclusive forever. That's all marriage really is aside from the legal bindings - but from what I understand the gay community got all those same legal rights and everything a long time ago, the Civil Partnership Act in 2004 in the UK for example. Not sure about the States, though.
Milo Yiannopoulos is gay and he debated another gay man and the argument against gay marriage laws in the UK went something like this: "Gays already had all the same rights as married people (Civil Partnership Act) except for the religious aspects. They used to sit in the back seat of the bus until they finally got a seat in the same front row, but that wasn't good enough for them, they wouldn't stop until they were sitting in the same seat."
Personally I don't care what happens as I'm not religious nor do I care what people do in their private sexual lives. I'm just explaining some of the rationale people use for 'not believing it' as the OP asked.
I'm a firm believer that government, on any level, shouldn't be involved in the marriage business. The only reason for it is to generate revenue from marriage licenses.
By the States being involved, it also gave the Feds another reason to step outside their Constitutional authority because of identity politics.
People (i.e. consenting adults) should be able to partner in such a manner without the .gov nosing in on it.
And here we see team "compromise at all costs" in action...
Compromise, logical discourse, and finding common cause is far better than enforcing change by radicalism, suppression of dissent via social pressure, and the barrel of a gun (force of law).
Which is what many on the Left nowadays are all too happy to do.
oldravenman3025 wrote: The only reason for it is to generate revenue from marriage licenses.
No, the reason for it is that it saves most people a lot of time and money on making their own version of a marriage contract when all they really need is the same standard contract that everyone else has. The only people who benefit from abolishing government-recognized marriage are lawyers.
Compromise, logical discourse, and finding common cause is far better than enforcing change by radicalism, suppression of dissent via social pressure, and the barrel of a gun (force of law).
This assumes that both sides have a legitimate case, and compromise is a reasonable thing to expect. If one side is clearly wrong then why should there be a compromise? If my position is that you should give me $10,000 just because I'm awesome and your position is that you shouldn't I don't think you're going to be at all convinced by the idea that we should compromise and have you give me $5,000.
Which is what many on the Left nowadays are all too happy to do.
Manchu wrote: Ahtman, I was more getting at the idea that when we're talking about a political conflict we're talking about (at least) two sets of beliefs - and all the sides tend toward fanatical (like hunting for opportunities to evince self-righteous indignation) when it comes to pushing the agenda that allegedly follows from those beliefs. All of this despite the fact that "on the ground" it is perfectly possible for peaceable and courteous co-existence.
And the reality is that when Referendum 201 - Ban on Gay Marriage, goes up for a vote, people who don't care one way or the other don't matter. The only people who do are the people who cared enough to go out and ban gay marriage, or not ban it. I suspect that the number of people who" don't care" goes down (but is not zero), when the issue actually lands on their front door. I think Ahtman was getting at that with his post, and it's also why Peregrine's position that ignoring something for the sake of a facade of tolerance is bad probably shouldn't be immediately dismissed (even if I disagree with his specific thought process on the issue).
It only takes a few people to make something an issue, but those few people are the ones who will decide the issue so really the silent majority doesn't matter outside of noting they exist and they are silent.
That said, I think you and D-USA are right in that the day to day dialogue of politics is a lot more about childish bickering over who got who now than anything of importance.
And assuming that gay couples can't raise children. Plus I have yet to see someone who is anti-gay marriage want to insist on procreation for the marriage to be legal. Contract claim based on actual reason is invalid.
You're ignoring history. That was the purpose of marriage. Indeed historically a lack of children was a valid reason to annul a marriage. DOn't forget historically life wasn't gaks and giggles. You grew up young, got married young, and died young.
As noted I agree this argument is outdated, but I made it as at one point it was a valid argument.
But not any more. It's a way for people to try to excuse bigotry now.
Religious reason has the original tenets developed because of anti-gay bigotry.
Objection your honor, argument without supporting evidence.
Sustained.
Considering that they ignore other parts and pick and choose the stuff that it anti-gay...It's anti-gay bigotry that led to the developing of those tenets. There was no good reason to put it in if it wasn't anti-gay bigotry. It may not be the person themselves...It may be whomever is interpreting and saying what is most important about the religion to the person.
Thus claiming religious reason IS rooted in bigotry especially when you try to force it on someone else.
However the OP was not noted as trying to force it onto someone else but in response to a question.
Being anti-gay marriage you ARE trying to force your opinion on someone else unless your only opinion is that you yourself shouldn't marry someone of the same sex.
I find it impossible to believe that someone using those excuses isn't looking for a way to try to make bigotry acceptable
Because you are bigoted against them. Your posting history denotes a hostility towards religion. It would be a bit of personal growth if you reflected on that, and how you could move beyond it.
I don't have a hostility to religion. I have my own religion. I just have a problem with people that expect someone else to follow the rules of their religion. I'm anti-whackjob, not anti-religious.
On the question of why so many take the issue personally... because it actually affects their lives, or the lives of people they love.
There's a weird idea out there that because to one person an issue is abstract political or religious concept, then everyone else should treat it in the same distanced manner. That somehow the other person is wrong for treating the issue as personal, even though it deals with something as personal as their ability to get married.
My sister got in to a doozy of an argument a while back. She was of the opinion that we should keep benefits down, to save money and encourage people to work. A friend of my wife happened to disagree with her, and something of a fight ensued. I think my sister gave a really good argument on the facts, and had the better argument on the whole. But my sister was wrong in dismissing the other lady's emotional approach to the issue. For my sister it was an abstract issue, fiscal politics, for this other lady, who was on benefits, it was a case of how she might pay next month's rent.
I don't know if we should be too quick to call people bigots when they oppose gay marriage. But at the same time, we are making a mistake if we reduce this down to 'everyone has an opinion', because to gay people there are real consequences to whether gay marriage is allowed or not. There is nothing wrong with taking it personally when someone is trying to deny you the chance to marry the person you love.
I do not believe in X can mean I find X socially/morally objectionable and would not recommend it.
I don't believe in being rude to waiting staff or cashiers.
I don't believe in throwing pearls before swine.
I don't believe in sex before marriage.
I don't believe in leaving men behind.
I don't believe in corporal punishment.
Its a personal opinion or belief that something is not positive rather than a refusal to believe that something exists.
Manchu wrote: At the same time, I have no problem with a government recognizing same-sex couples as being married for the usual non-religious purposes which governments recognize marriage.
Rare as this may sound, I'm completely on board with what Manchu is saying here.
*takes cold shower*
The requirement that gay couples have the same recognition and protections under the law (in the US) is an absolute imperative. It's one of those examples you can point to when you say "Name one right I have that you don't have!". The protections that come through the law through being in a "union" is something that everyone should be able to enjoy.
"Marriage", on the other hand, is a different thing.
This is actually one of the things that pisses me off so much about the pro-gay marriage groups in Australia. They think that the US and Oz are the same, when we have the robust de facto laws that the US lacks (and sorely needs).
Your co-worker could mean that his view of marriage entails a religious dimension transcendent of what any given civil authority recognizes as valid. That is what I mean when I say, "I don't believe in gay marriage." (Catholic here.) At the same time, I have no problem with a government recognizing same-sex couples as being married for the usual non-religious purposes which governments recognize marriage.
Manchu wins the thread for using the term "transcendent."
Manchu wrote: At the same time, I have no problem with a government recognizing same-sex couples as being married for the usual non-religious purposes which governments recognize marriage.
Rare as this may sound, I'm completely on board with what Manchu is saying here.
*takes cold shower*
The requirement that gay couples have the same recognition and protections under the law (in the US) is an absolute imperative. It's one of those examples you can point to when you say "Name one right I have that you don't have!". The protections that come through the law through being in a "union" is something that everyone should be able to enjoy.
"Marriage", on the other hand, is a different thing.
This is actually one of the things that pisses me off so much about the pro-gay marriage groups in Australia. They think that the US and Oz are the same, when we have the robust de facto laws that the US lacks (and sorely needs).
Homosexual marriage is now legal in the US. Not sure what you are saying here.
There are some broad possibilities. It could mean he views marriage as a religious affair and his religion does not condone homosexuality. It could mean he views marriage as a social construct for producing children and raising families, adoption being a separate issue from marriage. It could also mean he views marriage as an institution going back some six thousand years or more that has previously been reserved for a man and a woman (not addressing polygamy here) and he sees no reason for it to be changed. Or he could have some other reason.
My question is, why are you so upset about his beliefs?
I am not upset at his beliefs. I was upset at his denial that that is a bit of a bigoted thing to say in this day and age. We are in the U.S. Army and work together as instructors. We see all forms of Soldier pass through here on a daily basis, and to have an opinion such as this, could be detrimental to his ability to treat each Soldier the same and train them to the highest standard. As we are allowing females in our MOS now, where is the line drawn. It all stemmed from equal opportunity training, and a discussion in the vehicle on the way back to work after said training.
My daughter is most likely in the closet, even though she has not come out, to hear people would still place their views on others inflames me a bit, however I was not upset at his beliefs as much as my understanding of his statement as it seemed he meant it.
oldravenman3025 wrote: The only reason for it is to generate revenue from marriage licenses.
No, the reason for it is that it saves most people a lot of time and money on making their own version of a marriage contract when all they really need is the same standard contract that everyone else has. The only people who benefit from abolishing government-recognized marriage are lawyers.
Actually the government got into the marriage business because the christians of the day argued for it to stop interracial marriages. #themoreyouknow
Depending on his age, though, it may be helpful to take a step back and look at the history of gay marriage. Even 10 or 20 years ago, it was illegal in many, if not most, states.
Hell, don't ask don't tell was repealed in 2011. That means that until only 5 years ago, if you admitted you were a homosexual in the U.S. military, you could be fired.
Gay rights has come a long way in a very, VERY short time, and many people, you know, haven't moved along with the times, in the same way that they don't like, say, new movies, music, or are unfamiliar with new technology.
Some may have deep-seated religious reservations against gay rights - I'm not a churchgoer, but I'm fairly certain that a majority of churches in the country, especially the south, are still very much anti gay rights.
But if he's a religious dude in this 50s or older - yeah, it's not surprising he doesn't approve of gay marriage. In the world he grew up in and is most familiar with, homosexuality was abhorrent.
And just because he doesn't believe in gay marriage doesn't mean he's a member of the westboro Baptist church, or road-hauls homosexuals in his truck until they're nothing but a pelvis wearing a belt.
It's simply what he was raised to believe in, and what he continues to. And changing that is a difficult thing.
Food for thought: In the 60s, black rights was the big social struggle. Today, gay rights is the big social struggle. Makes you wonder what big social struggle will be going on in 30-40 years (because you know society is always struggling with something), and whether or not you'll be open-minded enough to accept it.
Food for thought: In the 60s, black rights was the big social struggle. Today, gay rights is the big social struggle. Makes you wonder what big social struggle will be going on in 30-40 years (because you know society is always struggling with something), and whether or not you'll be open-minded enough to accept it.
Depending on his age, though, it may be helpful to take a step back and look at the history of gay marriage. Even 10 or 20 years ago, it was illegal in many, if not most, states.
Hell, don't ask don't tell was repealed in 2011. That means that until only 5 years ago, if you admitted you were a homosexual in the U.S. military, you could be fired.
Gay rights has come a long way in a very, VERY short time, and many people, you know, haven't moved along with the times, in the same way that they don't like, say, new movies, music, or are unfamiliar with new technology.
Some may have deep-seated religious reservations against gay rights - I'm not a churchgoer, but I'm fairly certain that a majority of churches in the country, especially the south, are still very much anti gay rights.
But if he's a religious dude in this 50s or older - yeah, it's not surprising he doesn't approve of gay marriage. In the world he grew up in and is most familiar with, homosexuality was abhorrent.
And just because he doesn't believe in gay marriage doesn't mean he's a member of the westboro Baptist church, or road-hauls homosexuals in his truck until they're nothing but a pelvis wearing a belt.
It's simply what he was raised to believe in, and what he continues to. And changing that is a difficult thing.
Food for thought: In the 60s, black rights was the big social struggle. Today, gay rights is the big social struggle. Makes you wonder what big social struggle will be going on in 30-40 years (because you know society is always struggling with something), and whether or not you'll be open-minded enough to accept it.
Truth is until I had my "awakening" in the desert during an offensive in 2004 I had many deep seated beliefs that had roots in Christianity. After I shed the chains of religion and began a long and arduous task of self reflection, I realized that when religion was no longer and excuse, I no longer had an excuse to feel the way I did. It was not until my daughter started getting on me for some of the colorful language I would use that I realized I still had that baggage. I have since then tried to spread the good word of critical thinking and introspection.
When I hear certain things from Soldiers, knowing how the majority of us are, I know what they mean, whether they know what they mean. Back peddling on a statement doesn't make it non bigoted. The old Impact vs Intent argument takes hold.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Rare as this may sound, I'm completely on board with what Manchu is saying here.
*takes cold shower*
LOL - no shower is cold enough.
redleger wrote: When I hear certain things from Soldiers, knowing how the majority of us are, I know what they mean, whether they know what they mean.
Then ... what was the point of this thread?
"I think critically and don't just assume things."
"I already know what this guy thinks even if he doesn't."
Maybe give that one another try?
The point of this thread was honestly to see if I was totally out in left field for hearing his sentence and thinking what seems to be a concensus, " I do not believe in gay marriage" when what I interpreted from that was "I oppose gay marriage" He is not in any position to push an agenda that affects anyone. None of us are, we are merely servants. But when he turned and said, that is not a bigoted, prejudiced statement, and then tried to explain why that statement was not, even after he did admit he was opposed to gay marriage, I thought maybe I was losing my mind. I know the OT thread can get quite flamey, and there are many many points of view here. It is very representative of a large population in a small subset.
That being said, there have been many views here, many good points and I have learned a lot about perception from reading this thread. I do understand you can disagree with something and not be prejudiced but saying you oppose something is pretty much a prejudiced thing to say.
I do not believe fat people should be Soldiers. If you wear the uniform, and are fat, you receive a fair amount of prejudice. the statement in and of itself is anti fat person. (this was just an example.)
redleger wrote: I am not upset at his beliefs. I was upset at his denial that that is a bit of a bigoted thing to say in this day and age.
<snip>
My daughter is most likely in the closet, even though she has not come out, to hear people would still place their views on others inflames me a bit...
Ah, I think we're finally at the nut of the problem. Your co-worker has a set of values/beliefs that are at variance with your own. You apparently do not accept these values as valid given your own life experiences, therefore you project negative qualities onto your co-worker such as concerns about his ability to do his job properly despite lacking any factual evidence supporting such conclusions. You are intolerance of his beliefs and need to justify your own feelings (and correct this dissonance) so you project onto him, calling him a bigot. You made this thread wanting to understand your co-worker's position but I think you were actually looking for peer support of your own reasoning. It seems you were hoping for a majority of us to say, "You co-worker has no reasonable or defensible excuse for holding such opinions."
You have an adversarial point of view with your co-worker. People fall into that type of trap all the time. Politics, economic theory, religion, even with subjects like which game company has the best miniatures seem to encourage adversarial points of view. None of that makes anyone a bigot or a bad person or even wrong but it seems we forget that sometimes. I hope eventually you'll discover that people aren't necessarily bigots just because they hold beliefs that are in opposition to your own.
redleger wrote: saying you oppose something is pretty much a prejudiced thing to say
Not meaningfully, no. It is perfectly possible to be opposed to the notion of "gay marriage" without having any hateful feelings toward gay people. The kind of black and white thinking that says otherwise is what lobbyists try to sell: "unless you agree with me, you are a bigot." So much of political discourse these days is outright bullying and this is a good example.
redleger wrote: I am not upset at his beliefs. I was upset at his denial that that is a bit of a bigoted thing to say in this day and age.
<snip>
My daughter is most likely in the closet, even though she has not come out, to hear people would still place their views on others inflames me a bit...
Ah, I think we're finally at the nut of the problem. Your co-worker has a set of values/beliefs that are at variance with your own. You apparently do not accept these values as valid given your own life experiences, therefore you project negative qualities onto your co-worker such as concerns about his ability to do his job properly despite lacking any factual evidence supporting such conclusions. You are intolerance of his beliefs and need to justify your own feelings (and correct this dissonance) so you project onto him, calling him a bigot. You made this thread wanting to understand your co-worker's position but I think you were actually looking for peer support of your own reasoning. It seems you were hoping for a majority of us to say, "You co-worker has no reasonable or defensible excuse for holding such opinions."
You have an adversarial point of view with your co-worker. People fall into that type of trap all the time. Politics, economic theory, religion, even with subjects like which game company has the best miniatures seem to encourage adversarial points of view. None of that makes anyone a bigot or a bad person or even wrong but it seems we forget that sometimes. I hope eventually you'll discover that people aren't necessarily bigots just because they hold beliefs that are in opposition to your own.
Honestly no, I do not need anyone too "co-sign" on my feelings. It is exactly as I said, how would you interpret this statement. I do not care if he thinks its ok, but in our job, speaking of how we personally feel is considered a big no-no when it comes to any form of equal opportunity treatment. You can feel how ever you want, being verbal about it is, however not ok. To make that statement, and then defend it in the same breath you just said you do oppose it is not ok. I am not hurt about that though, I left my feelings in Hazarbus valley many years ago. But as I said, I have seen a good bit of back and forth and am seeing different points of view. But I think the statement itself, as seen with this context, by a reasonable person could be interpreted as being in opposition.
redleger wrote: saying you oppose something is pretty much a prejudiced thing to say
Not meaningfully, no. It is perfectly possible to be opposed to the notion of "gay marriage" without having any hateful feelings toward gay people. The kind of black and white thinking that says otherwise is what lobbyists try to sell: "unless you agree with me, you are a bigot." So much of political discourse these days is outright bullying and this is a good example.
You may be true. I live in a black or white world. Sometimes maybe it affects my way of thinking. 10 more months I have to learn to live in the real world again. Atleast I have people here that speak how it is.
redleger wrote: I am not upset at his beliefs. I was upset at his denial that that is a bit of a bigoted thing to say in this day and age.
<snip>
My daughter is most likely in the closet, even though she has not come out, to hear people would still place their views on others inflames me a bit...
Ah, I think we're finally at the nut of the problem. Your co-worker has a set of values/beliefs that are at variance with your own. You apparently do not accept these values as valid given your own life experiences, therefore you project negative qualities onto your co-worker such as concerns about his ability to do his job properly despite lacking any factual evidence supporting such conclusions. You are intolerance of his beliefs and need to justify your own feelings (and correct this dissonance) so you project onto him, calling him a bigot. You made this thread wanting to understand your co-worker's position but I think you were actually looking for peer support of your own reasoning. It seems you were hoping for a majority of us to say, "You co-worker has no reasonable or defensible excuse for holding such opinions."
You have an adversarial point of view with your co-worker. People fall into that type of trap all the time. Politics, economic theory, religion, even with subjects like which game company has the best miniatures seem to encourage adversarial points of view. None of that makes anyone a bigot or a bad person or even wrong but it seems we forget that sometimes. I hope eventually you'll discover that people aren't necessarily bigots just because they hold beliefs that are in opposition to your own.
Its just this sort of reasoned, calm, conciliatory post that has no place on the internet! For shame!
MrDwhitey wrote: I've found bigots often call the people pointing out their bigotry, bigots.
Bigotry is when someone is intolerant towards an opinion that is different than yours.
So if you call someone a bigot because you perceive that they are intolerant of one of your views, they can also call you a bigot because you are intolerant of their views.
Yes that is funny. People calling others "bigots" are inherently hypocrites, for calling people "bigots" based on their beliefs or opinions is bigoted. In the end, all people are bigoted against something or another. That is inherent to human nature. And that is one more reason why calling people "bigots" is a really, really bad idea. Not only is it meaningless and hypocritical (and I suspect most people only do it to make themselves look better), but it creates hostility and leads to conflict, and prevents any possibility for meaningful, constructive dialogue. A good person would leave the casting of stones to those without sin, as someone very wise once reminded us.
Topic creators: I have this point of view.
Posters vary agree or disagree
TC gets annoyed and wants to give more and more info to recieve agreeance on his point of view.
Long story short most people do not want to understand a differnt point of view when they say lets talk about this, but confirmation on their own view.
Btw I do not believe in gay marriage.
But with that said if two people" adults" want to commit to each other they should reciece all the benifits and cons of said relationship. Kinda like what the hell is it called... Where you live with someone for several years and become common spouce? I say gay straight what ever you want to commit to each other then good for ya hope you are happy. And you should get all the same benifits.
But I was taught that marriage is alot less about a man and a woman and more about helping protecting children from....problems in a relationship between people. Like back in the day a woman couldnt work so if she got married and had kids, if she was married she still got some of his money for the safety of the kids. But I will add this becauspeople asked gays can addopt great nice good for them. They should be allowed to be addopted by the couple no matter the gender.
I just see marriage of promising to make kids with each other and make them safe.
I think there is a nice middle ground that can be met here. I think I got it gays recieve all the same benifits but use a different word for their agreement to commit to each other. Then both side can go bug off lol. I do not think anyone is saying that if your gay and in pain your loved one cant be with you til the end. No matter what they are packimg in their pants
redleger wrote: You may be true. I live in a black or white world. Sometimes maybe it affects my way of thinking. 10 more months I have to learn to live in the real world again. Atleast I have people here that speak how it is.
Just be suspicious of anyone who tells you it is either this way or that, I guess, when it comes to such complex issues.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: "Gay marriage is not for me, nor should it be for anyone else", is a bigoted statement.
Not necessarily, just the same as how opposing a certain kind of health care scheme, although it certainly affects more people than just the person opposed, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with hatefulness.
redleger wrote: You may be true. I live in a black or white world. Sometimes maybe it affects my way of thinking. 10 more months I have to learn to live in the real world again. Atleast I have people here that speak how it is.
Just be suspicious of anyone who tells you it is either this way or that, I guess, when it comes to such complex issues.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: "Gay marriage is not for me, nor should it be for anyone else", is a bigoted statement.
Not necessarily, just the same as how opposing a certain kind of health care scheme, although it certainly affects more people than just the person opposed, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with hatefulness.
I actually think there is a bit of hate in that last sentence. Who are you to tell someone it isn't for them. Sounds kind of hateful to me. Although this is not what I believe the OP was trying to say, although I realized I interpreted it that way. But if he had straight up said, gay people do not have a right to marry each other, then I would have a problem with him. Just how I feel about it. I do have the right to disassociate myself with him and he with me. I would just not invite him to my house anymore, cause my daughter would not need to hear that kind of thing. I can't protect her forever, but I can while she's under my roof.
Baxx wrote: I had a friend saying "I don't believe in women's rights". Wonder what that means.
You could probably ask him. Or you could come onto a message board and complain about it. Wonder what you motives are? Well, let me just ask.
redleger wrote: I actually think there is a bit of hate in that last sentence.
And I think you are bound to find whatever you are are determined to, whether it's there or not.
redleger wrote: Who are you to tell someone it isn't for them.
In a democratic society? Just another one of the people, with just as much right to support or oppose the creation or expansion of a civil institution as any other member of the society. That's who. But there are broader implications, of course. Some people don't think that any old concept can be voted into reality, sort of an Emperor's New Clothes situation. Now me personally, I realize we are talking about the positive law here - and that means it is certainly possible to create certain legal rights for people of the same sex who enter into a certain legal relationship.
redleger wrote: I do have the right to disassociate myself with him and he with me.
Baxx wrote: I had a friend saying "I don't believe in women's rights". Wonder what that means.
You could probably ask him. Or you could come onto a message board and complain about it. Wonder what you motives are? Well, let me just ask.
redleger wrote: I actually think there is a bit of hate in that last sentence.
And I think you are bound to find whatever you are are determined to, whether it's there or not.
redleger wrote: Who are you to tell someone it isn't for them.
In a democratic society? Just another one of the people, with just as much right to support or oppose the creation or expansion of a civil institution as any other member of the society. That's who. But there are broader implications, of course. Some people don't think that any old concept can be voted into reality, sort of an Emperor's New Clothes situation. Now me personally, I realize we are talking about the positive law here - and that means it is certainly possible to create certain legal rights for people of the same sex who enter into a certain legal relationship.
redleger wrote: I do have the right to disassociate myself with him and he with me.
Well sure but so what?
Sounds like you think I am complaining. I am not. I have things to complain about, but I just don't. I figured I would see conversation, different takes on the sentence, and then help myself form an opinion on whether I was correct to interpret his sentence in that way. couldn't ask others here at work, or that could have ended badly. This is semi-anonymous after all. I have learned a bit, and with the benefit of a nights rest, have decided it wasn't as malicious, in his context as I initially took it. Although starting to seem like there is hate in your heart, just a little bit anyway.
The point being, it's not a very useful line of conversation. Or rather, it is useful if all you want is to lord it over others - as I mentioned about the kind of rhetoric lobbyists use - rather than have a dialogue.
Manchu wrote: Not necessarily, just the same as how opposing a certain kind of health care scheme, although it certainly affects more people than just the person opposed, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with hatefulness.
Prejudice is not an antonym for hate, not are either antonyms for bigot, though the modern realities of PC, and counter PC, in our culture have done a wonderful job of dumbing it all down so the masses can throw the words are one another. One can oppose Gay marriage without being prejudiced, and one can be pejudiced without being bigoted. Someone who thinks "gays are sexual deviants degrading the moral fabric of society," but decides to simply live and let live is prejudiced, but not bigoted. Someone who says "gay marriage is wrong, and the government should ban it" is bigoted, but not necessarily prejudiced.
At the end of the day, you still have the reality that both positions are hateful, but at least the former isn't actively screwing anyone over so I suppose on the sliding scale that opinion comes out ahead. Gay marriage isn't like welfare, or health care schemes. It's not a complex system in which someone can take a side effect of the outcome, notice it disproportionately effects urban African American communities, and claim racism. Gay marriage is a very straight forward and simple thing, and there's a lot less room for someone to stand saying they "oppose it" but "don't hate homosexuals."
I think this textual medium has a tendency to equivocation. The reason I use the concept of hatefulness is because I want to talk about something meaningful, something that might actually express itself in meat space rather than just be spun out into a n increasingly ethereal strand of rhetoric here in the digital void; in short, a rather blank notion like prejudice or a playground insult like bigot. There is plenty of room between opposing gay marriage and hating gay people - but there is tremendous political pressure to close that rhetorical gap. To the extent that someone buys into that line, I think it's a crying shame not least because it seems to be motivated by the thirst for self-righteousness.
feeder wrote: "Gay marriage is not for me, nor should it be for anyone else", is a bigoted statement.
Not necessarily, just the same as how opposing a certain kind of health care scheme, although it certainly affects more people than just the person opposed, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with hatefulness.
I suppose you are correct, but what health care scheme is in place for a country affects everyone in that country, whereas gay marriage only effects those parties getting gay married.
Perhaps a better re-wording of my statement would be
"Collecting a Dwarf team is not for me" vs
"Collecting a Dwarf team is not for me, nor should it be for anyone else."
feeder wrote: whereas gay marriage only effects those parties getting gay married
If that were true, there would be no point in all the time and effort that folks have put into creating gay marriage. We're not just talking about a private relationship here (where "we don't need no piece of paper" as Joni Mitchell said). This is a public, legal institution, and therefore does affect parties beyond the spouses. Indeed, that is the point - not that you would know it from the sloganeering (on both sides).
Manchu wrote: I think this textual medium has a tendency to equivocation.
Yeah, but it's also all we really got. We're not a telepathic species (yet... )
There is plenty of room between opposing gay marriage and hating gay people
Forgive me, but for pointing out that textual mediums have a tendency for equivocation, you're doing a very good job of building a middle ground that seems to beg existence on the sole basis of semantics. That people throw the words bigot and prejudice around like candy in a Hershey factory, isn't close to the notions being blank with no meaning in the physical. Just that people use them in a way that makes little sense. There's certainly a discussion to be had there, and how modern politics have reduced rhetoric into a child's game. That's neither here nor there though. I'm not seeing the meaningfulness in it as it pertains to this discussion, or how pointing out that rhetoric has been reduced into a child's game produced this ground for people to stand you claim exists.
A meaningful discussion might actually address the kinds of reasoning that people develop in opposing gay marriage, and whether or not those reasoning constitute any of these words people like throwing around. Your current logic feels a lot more like indignation at the current state of political discourse than anything having to do with meat space.
I think your earlier posts in thread, and D-USA's, are great examples of how people aren't as simple as politics tries to make them seem. Dumbing down rhetoric doesn't exist just on the internet. It exists everywhere, and is always present. There are gay Christians, and I think they might have a bone to pick with the notion that they can't participate in a Biblical covenant between God and themselves. That might exist outside the realm of civil authority, but it's not a realm that is somehow inherently immune to charges of mean sounding words no one wants to be called.
It's hard to take your criticism seriously since it's just as applicable to your own claims ("beg [non]existence on the sole basis of semantics"). We could continue with a tit-for-tat as if I have made no other posts giving context to this tangent ... but I don't really want to and won't.
Manchu wrote: It is perfectly possible to be opposed to the notion of "gay marriage" without having any hateful feelings toward gay people.
Not really. It's possible to lie (even to yourself) and say that your hateful feelings aren't hateful, but it's still hate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
OgreChubbs wrote: I just see marriage of promising to make kids with each other and make them safe.
And gay couples can have kids, therefore they should be married. Your argument against gay marriage fails.
I think there is a nice middle ground that can be met here. I think I got it gays recieve all the same benifits but use a different word for their agreement to commit to each other.
There is a middle ground, but there is no reason to take it. I see no reason at all to care about the feelings of the poor bigots who don't like gay couples using "their" term for marriage, just like I wouldn't see any reason to take the middle ground with the KKK and invent a new term for interracial marriage.
Manchu wrote: It's hard to take your criticism seriously since it's just as applicable to your own claims ("beg [non]existence on the sole basis of semantics").
An ostentatious house of cards built on dismissing words because they are overused equivocally is simply building a gray fallacy. Talking about motes in thy brother's eye in this discussion seems a disingenuous attempt to build a position that cannot be questioned by barring from discussion relevant concepts. It's a vain attempt to force all discussion down a single narrow path in a hypocritical turn around of the kind of rhetoric you find distasteful. One where you can knock any attempt to point out that the house of cards is a house of cards as "self-righteousness." Pointing that out isn't tit-for-tat, and if your other posts in thread actually addressed the issue I wouldn't bother pointing it out.
feeder wrote: whereas gay marriage only effects those parties getting gay married
If that were true, there would be no point in all the time and effort that folks have put into creating gay marriage. We're not just talking about a private relationship here (where "we don't need no piece of paper" as Joni Mitchell said). This is a public, legal institution, and therefore does affect parties beyond the spouses. Indeed, that is the point - not that you would know it from the sloganeering (on both sides).
To continue your metaphor, it's more like -
"Hey I want to collect a Cylon team."
"But Cylons aren't in Warhammer."
"Well add 'em."
"How about you use Cylons counts-as?"
"Don't be a bigot."
Your metaphore doesn't work, feeder had it right.
People wanted to get married, the government told them no based on some arbitrary reason. They might as well just pushed that people who drink pepsi can't marry other people who drink pepsi because no one in the bible drank pepsi. so the pepsi drinkers put a lot of time and effort to get married, just married, 2 men get married, not gay married.
Actually the government got into the marriage business because the christians of the day argued for it to stop interracial marriages. #themoreyouknow
'The government' was in the marriage business before the Christian church existed.
yes, but the marriage license in the US only came about because those fighting against the civil rights movement didn't want interracial couples to marry.
And to continue the other point, they didn't create "interracial marriage" they just got the government and "those people" to stop fighting against their rights to get married.
OgreChubbs wrote: Like back in the day a woman couldnt work so if she got married and had kids, if she was married she still got some of his money for the safety of the kids.
So... Not really applicable to modern Western society, then?
Just calling it something else isn't the solution. It puts us back in 'black people sit in the back of the bus' territory. I mean, they shouldn't have any reason to complain... The seats are the same as those up the front, right?
Why does your personal definition of marriage automatically get exclusive use of the word?
feeder wrote: whereas gay marriage only effects those parties getting gay married
If that were true, there would be no point in all the time and effort that folks have put into creating gay marriage. We're not just talking about a private relationship here (where "we don't need no piece of paper" as Joni Mitchell said). This is a public, legal institution, and therefore does affect parties beyond the spouses. Indeed, that is the point - not that you would know it from the sloganeering (on both sides).
How does the gay couple across the street being married or not affect my life? Or anyone at all beyond their social circle?
For a long time I've subscribed to the "Don't like gay marriage? Don't get gay married." meme as true.
I don't see how the existence of gay marriage could affect (literally, actually affect) anyone who isn't getting entering into such a marriage.
That's would be why I haven't used any question marks
you are offering (really forcing) a false dilemma.
Maybe I've misunderstood your position, but rather than actually address my attempt to engage it "meaningfully" you've chosen to respond with "tit-for-tat" remarks about logical fallacies and;
And you're not the only one.
generalizations that I'm part of some ambiguous but evidently bad "other," because it's not possible that anyone could disagree with you legitimately. Honestly it all comes of as trying to befuddle disagreement with an embellished, but nonelaborate lexicon.
OgreChubbs wrote: Like back in the day a woman couldnt work so if she got married and had kids, if she was married she still got some of his money for the safety of the kids.
So... Not really applicable to modern Western society, then?
Just calling it something else isn't the solution. It puts us back in 'black people sit in the back of the bus' territory. I mean, they shouldn't have any reason to complain... The seats are the same as those up the front, right?
Why does your personal definition of marriage automatically get exclusive use of the word?
Not really because one of them does not have to mean something demeaning. kinda like what is your consul of choice? ps4 or xbox1? neither is a bad thing but some people prefer something different.
Same as legally I was common law "found the name from the wife" for 3 years before we got married. No one gave me crap when I said we where common law. So if you where in a same sex relation ship and people said this is your spouse yet it is my Y. ect.
Different names for things does not mean one is less then or more then the other they are just different.
p.s. my meaning doesnt get to be right I am just trying to find a middle ground. So no one will be happy but no one will be too pissed lol.
Different names for things does not mean one is less then or more then the other they are just different.
If they're the same, there is no point in having a different name for one of them...
p.s. my meaning doesnt get to be right I am just trying to find a middle ground. So no one will be happy but no one will be too pissed lol.
Why do we need to find a middle ground, here?
If someone bails me up in the street and tells me that I'm not allowed to use my surname, because he has the same surname and feels that it belongs to him alone, should I change my name to something else that we're both willing to settle for?
Or should I just tell him to mind his own damn business and carry on using the name?
Manchu wrote: I think this is where a lot of people can agree. But there are some people who are really, really offended by the notion that, if you invite me to your gay wedding then I will come, I will bring you a present, I will even feel genuinely happy for you and wish you and your spouse the enjoyment of many happy years, but yet it will always be just a "marriage" (with the quotation marks) in my heart of hearts. To pull it away from the issue of sexual orientation, the same thing applies about a divorced person getting "remarried." So in my mind, the courteous and therefore right thing to do is simply keep what is in my heart of hearts where it is in that sort of situation. But it's the hypothetical aspect of it, I guess you'd say, that people object to because the real argument comes down to are ABC beliefs the right ones or XYZ, even considering it is perfectly possible for people with both beliefs to coexist peaceably and courteously. The thirst for that conflict is what really baffles me.
Given that Catholicism considers homosexuality to be against nature I'm not sure how you can sincerely state that you would feel "genuinely happy" for the hypothetical couple. You really can't see how someone would be offended by you viewing their marriage as 'lesser' than the marriage of a different couple with a different assortment of genitals, or that handing someone a gift while sincerely believing that they are living in a perpetual state of sin might give them pause?
Fundamentally those are all just feelings though.
As with the OPs questions, ultimately the only question that matters is, would you oppose gay marriage? Beliefs only have any real meaning if you are enacting them in your life.
OgreChubbs wrote: Like back in the day a woman couldnt work so if she got married and had kids, if she was married she still got some of his money for the safety of the kids.
So... Not really applicable to modern Western society, then?
Just calling it something else isn't the solution. It puts us back in 'black people sit in the back of the bus' territory. I mean, they shouldn't have any reason to complain... The seats are the same as those up the front, right?
Why does your personal definition of marriage automatically get exclusive use of the word?
Not really because one of them does not have to mean something demeaning. kinda like what is your consul of choice? ps4 or xbox1? neither is a bad thing but some people prefer something different.
Same as legally I was common law "found the name from the wife" for 3 years before we got married. No one gave me crap when I said we where common law. So if you where in a same sex relation ship and people said this is your spouse yet it is my Y. ect.
Different names for things does not mean one is less then or more then the other they are just different.
p.s. my meaning doesnt get to be right I am just trying to find a middle ground. So no one will be happy but no one will be too pissed lol.
Ok....but I can go buy either an XBox or a PS4....or both. Youre describing a situation where one group has access to both and another only has access to one, but it's ok because they are 'totally the same'.
Try to describe anything like that while substituting a racial minority for homosexuality and see how that feels.
Given that Catholicism considers homosexuality to be against nature I'm not sure how you can sincerely state that you would feel "genuinely happy" for the hypothetical couple.
During World War One, Pope Benedict XV took a position of neutrality, and attempted to negotiate peace throughout the war. That didn't stop predominantly Catholic Italy, and France from fighting. Being Catholic does not innately tie someone down to every minute detail of Catholic dogma, anymore than being American requires someone to carrying a shot gun, wave a flag, and pontificate about freedom. I grew up Southern Baptist more than anything, i don't think there are any points of faith on which I completely agree with them.
Okay - in good faith, I'll summarize the view I have attempted to lay out: Opposition to expanding civil recognition of marriage to gay couples does not necessarily entail hatred of gay people - neither hypothetical nor actual nor conceptual nor personal. I think the main reason that leads otherwise rational and well-meaning people to believe the contrary claim, which is a false dilemma and a pretty nasty bit of rhetorical bullying, is that they consider marriage, at least for the purposes of this issue, as first and foremost a kind of political right to which some group of people are entitled and which group can be expanded by exercise of political will. Considered purely in that manner, I can "support" (read: not oppose) so-called gay marriage, which is more properly described, again in the sense of positive law, as the expansion of certain legal rights to people who did not previously enjoy them. There are people who would oppose even this understanding of gay marriage (call it an "expanded definition of marriage") on the grounds that marriage, even in the context of legal rights, should be considered as something more. Keep in mind, I don't personally agree with this position (I don't think the state has any authority beyond the law) - but even so this position does not require hatred of anyone for any reason; it generally just means they have a much more reverential view of the state. Now the absence of a necessary relationship between opposition and hatred does not mean there can never, in any given case, be such a connection - obviously.
@plastictrees
I'm not sure that I understand your question. My assent to the teachings of my faith does not preclude me from feeling genuine happiness for friends' delight that their loving relationship is recognized by the civil authorities for the purposes of accessing certain legal rights. I don't much sympathize if they take offense knowing that I do not consider that formal, legal relationship to be an authentic marriage in the religious sense. My understanding of marriage has very little to do with legal requirements imposed by the state and very much to do with my Catholic faith. Now - I have seen this kind of thing plenty of times, where someone who doesn't qualify for a sacrament is offended by the fact that they should not receive it ... like when a Protestant wants to take communion at mass. This makes no sense to me. Why do you want to be in communion with us but not share our faith? (= a paradox) The problem is, they think the host is a prize and they are just as entitled to the prize as anyone. But actually the sacrament is called communion for a reason: it is the reality of our solidarity in faith. Similarly, I know gay Catholics on both sides of this issue - some who understand and accept the elements of sacramental marriage and some who don't accept it. Now, if you're asking me whether I'm scandalized that there are Catholics out there that disagree with the teachings of our faith on some issues ... no, that's par for the course. Faith encompasses a truth a lot wider than any political issue. Sadly, not a few Catholics stay bitterly angry "at the Church" their whole lives long, for whatever reason.
Okay - in good faith, I'll summarize the view I have attempted to lay out: Opposition to expanding civil recognition of marriage to gay couples does not necessarily entail hatred of gay people - neither hypothetical nor actual nor conceptual nor personal. I think the main reason that leads otherwise rational and well-meaning people to believe the contrary claim, which is a false dilemma and a pretty nasty bit of rhetorical bullying, is that they consider marriage, at least for the purposes of this issue, as first and foremost a kind of political right to which some group of people are entitled and which group can be expanded by exercise of political will. Considered purely in that manner, I can "support" (read: not oppose) so-called gay marriage, which is more properly described, again in the sense of positive law, as the expansion of certain legal rights to people who did not previously enjoy them. There are people who would oppose even this understanding of gay marriage (call it an "expanded definition of marriage") on the grounds that marriage, even in the context of legal rights, should be considered as something more. Keep in mind, I don't personally agree with this position (I don't think the state has any authority beyond the law) - but even so this position does not require hatred of anyone for any reason; it generally just means they have a much more reverential view of the state. Now the absence of a necessary relationship between opposition and hatred does not mean there can never, in any given case, be such a connection - obviously.
I've understood all this. My response to it is that I don't think you can unequivocally determine that something isn't prejudiced, bigoted, hateful, etc etc etc because you don't think it is. Other people exist, and they can take issue with your position Having a religious dichotomy in which civil marriage, and religious marriage are different things is not an unassailable bastion in which you can oppose something and never be called any of those words. That's not how people work, it's not how religion works, and it's not how language works. Wishing it so does not make it. Hate, prejudice, and bigotry aren't stone tablets. They're fluid concepts. I think it naive to believe that any position is unquestionable, and arrogant to presume anyone questioning it must be part of some rhetorical bully squad.
I'm not sure that I understand your question. My assent to the teachings of my faith does not preclude me from feeling genuine happiness for friends' delight that their loving relationship is recognized by the civil authorities for the purposes of accessing certain legal rights. I don't much sympathize if they take offense knowing that I do not consider that formal, legal relationship to be an authentic marriage in the religious sense. My understanding of marriage has very little to do with legal requirements imposed by the state and very much to do with my Catholic faith. Now - I have seen this kind of thing plenty of times, where someone who doesn't qualify for a sacrament is offended by the fact that they should not receive it ... like when a Protestant wants to take communion at mass. This makes no sense to me. Why do you want to be in communion with us but not share our faith? (= a paradox) The problem is, they think the host is a prize and they are just as entitled to the prize as anyone. But actually the sacrament is called communion for a reason: it is the reality of our solidarity in faith. Similarly, I know gay Catholics on both sides of this issue - some who understand and accept the elements of sacramental marriage and some who don't accept it. Now, if you're asking me whether I'm scandalized that there are Catholics out there that disagree with the teachings of our faith on some issues ... no, that's par for the course. Faith encompasses a truth a lot wider than any political issue. Sadly, not a few Catholics stay bitterly angry "at the Church" their whole lives long, for whatever reason.
"I'm genuinely happy for your legal union, but you aren't married according to my personal view, you have a disorder and, as of right now, will be going to hell." must be a difficult card to track down.
I'm not saying there is hate there, but at a certain point, what's the difference? The juicer they wanted and stating the above with a smile instead of yelling it with a frown?
Why Catholics would have good reason to be angry at the church is a whole other horrible discussion.
If you mean, a given person may or may not be motivated in their stance by some degree of hate - well sure. I have never argued otherwise.
If you mean, by opposing gay marriage, a person is unquestionably and necessarily acting from hatred ... then, intentionally or not, you're part of the rhetorical bully squad.
@plastictrees
Look - gonna make this very simple - I don't have time to waste on strawmen.
What strawmen? If that isn't what you believe then your views aren't in line with those of the Church. If that is what you believe then I think it's a bit disingenous to be baffled that anyone would be offended that you hold that opinion of them.
Anyway, it's clear that, for some people not believing in gay marriage doesn't mean opposing its legal adoption, which I guess is the point of this discussion.
Manchu wrote: So in my mind, the courteous and therefore right thing to do is simply keep what is in my heart of hearts where it is in that sort of situation.
as opposed to:
plastictrees wrote: "I'm genuinely happy for your legal union, but you aren't married according to my personal view, you have a disorder and, as of right now, will be going to hell." must be a difficult card to track down.
and
plastictrees wrote: The juicer they wanted and stating the above with a smile instead of yelling it with a frown?
If you can't manage to actually respond to what I post, rather than just airing out your anti-Catholic sentiments, then please consider this my last response to you.
It's a bit weird that you consider paraphrasing what the Catechism of the Catholic Church states about homosexuality is "airing out your anti-Catholic sentiments".
I was genuinely trying to explore how you rationalised your stated faith with your actions, partly because I am making my way, or struggling, through RCIA at the moment.
Manchu wrote: Now - I have seen this kind of thing plenty of times, where someone who doesn't qualify for a sacrament is offended by the fact that they should not receive it ... like when a Protestant wants to take communion at mass. This makes no sense to me. Why do you want to be in communion with us but not share our faith? (= a paradox) The problem is, they think the host is a prize and they are just as entitled to the prize as anyone. But actually the sacrament is called communion for a reason: it is the reality of our solidarity in faith.
That's a really bad analogy. Communion in your church is a purely religious thing, with no meaning outside of your church. Marriage isn't. When people advocate for gay marriage they are referring to a "marriage" that has nothing to do with your religion, not insisting that gay couples should be allowed to participate in the Catholic marriage rituals in your church.
Manchu wrote: I don't think your response makes any sense.
If you mean, a given person may or may not be motivated in their stance by some degree of hate - well sure. I have never argued otherwise.
If you mean, by opposing gay marriage, a person is unquestionably and necessarily acting from hatred ... then, intentionally or not, you're part of the rhetorical bully squad.
I'm saying (well, skittering around it because it seemed nicer but that's obviously not working) that your position looks a lot like the proverbial Southern gentleman who doesn't hate gays because he has gay friends who are married, but they'll never be as good as his heterosexual friends who are also married. It's obviously not the exact same thing, but surely you can conceive how that plays out in the minds of others? Neither you, nor I, are the sole arbitrators of what is and is not hate. Hate, bigotry, and prejudice are social standards. They expand, and they retract, and dissent is not dismissed by calling up a bogeyman.
Manchu wrote: If you mean, by opposing gay marriage, a person is unquestionably and necessarily acting from hatred ... then, intentionally or not, you're part of the rhetorical bully squad.
Attempting to label the other side of the debate the "rhetorical bully squad" is pretty hypocritical given your opposition to other people using terms like "bigot" to describe your side.
Also, simply declaring people who disagree with you to be the "rhetorical bully squad" doesn't mean their argument is wrong. You can claim that it isn't about hatred, and maybe you can even convince yourself of this fact (after all, most people don't want to admit to themselves that they're doing something wrong), but in the end it still comes down to hatred. Every argument against gay marriage is either open hatred, or so obviously absurd that the only way any person could possibly believe it is if they hate gay people and just want a polite excuse to talk about in public.
What you are saying is almost identical in form to the argument that "I don't hate black people, I just think that the races shouldn't mix" and similar excuses for racism and segregation. We don't hesitate to label that racism and hatred, so why should we hesitate when the same kind of argument is applied to gay people?
What I consider anti-Catholic is mischaracterizing what I actually said, that I would keep my beliefs to myself when stating them would be inappropriate and offensive to friends, by insulting me, insisting that I would instead of needs behave offensively as well as insincerely as a matter of my faith. As for you going through RCIA, the sooner you learn this the better: Catholicism isn't a game and the catechism isn't the rulebook. If you have sincere questions about this, feel free to PM me. I have gone through the whole thing myself, from hard atheism to here, and may be able to help.
It's not even close but the whole exercise is irrelevant because the only issue is whether opposing gay marriage necessarily and unquestionably entail hating gay people. If you claim it does you set up the false dichotomy, you either support gay marriage or you hate gay people.
Peregrine wrote: Attempting to label the other side of the debate the "rhetorical bully squad" is pretty hypocritical
I don't think you understand hypocrisy. What I'm criticizing is threatening slander as part of a rhetorical trap, which is bullying.
Peregrine wrote: Also, simply declaring people who disagree with you to be the "rhetorical bully squad" doesn't mean their argument is wrong.
Agreed but I addressed why the tactic in addition to being bullying is also a bad argument. Speaking of bullying:
Peregrine wrote: What you are saying is almost identical in form to the argument that "I don't hate black people, I just think that the races shouldn't mix"
No, the issue of marriage between a man and woman of any race or races is not the same thing as the issue of marriage between two people of the same sex, self-evidently. The question of "form" is irrelevant, you (and LoH) are just trying to tar me with the racist brush.
Peregrine wrote: That's a really bad analogy. Communion in your church is a purely religious thing, with no meaning outside of your church. Marriage isn't. When people advocate for gay marriage they are referring to a "marriage" that has nothing to do with your religion, not insisting that gay couples should be allowed to participate in the Catholic marriage rituals in your church.
You have your wires crossed, this was in response to a tangent. The analogy is perfectly apt because the issue of that tangent was Catholic religious beliefs rather than legal rights. I spelled out my thoughts on the latter as well:
Manchu wrote: I think the main reason that leads otherwise rational and well-meaning people to believe the contrary claim, which is a false dilemma and a pretty nasty bit of rhetorical bullying, is that they consider marriage, at least for the purposes of this issue, as first and foremost a kind of political right to which some group of people are entitled and which group can be expanded by exercise of political will. Considered purely in that manner, I can "support" (read: not oppose) so-called gay marriage, which is more properly described, again in the sense of positive law, as the expansion of certain legal rights to people who did not previously enjoy them.
Every argument against gay marriage is either open hatred, or so obviously absurd that the only way any person could possibly believe it is if they hate gay people and just want a polite excuse to talk about in public.
That is absolute nonsense. In fact, virtually all claims of the structure "every X is Y" generally come down to just being a load of prejudiced nonsense. To proof this claim you would need to list every single argument against gay marriage ever made in the history of man, and then prove for every single argument that it is either open hatred or absurd. Do you now see why this claim of yours is untenable?
What you are saying is almost identical in form to the argument that "I don't hate black people, I just think that the races shouldn't mix" and similar excuses for racism and segregation. We don't hesitate to label that racism and hatred, so why should we hesitate when the same kind of argument is applied to gay people?
That is a red herring. Homosexuality and race are not the same thing, they are very much different issues.
Manchu wrote: No, the issue of marriage between a man and woman of any race or races is not the same thing as the issue of marriage between two people of the same sex, self-evidently. The question of "form" is irrelevant, you (and LoH) are just trying to tar me with the racist brush.]
The strange "coincidence" in the states though, every argument used to prevent interracial marriages is now being used to prevent same sex marriages. The same group opposed both, basing their opposition on what the bible teaches. So we can see the connection between the racism then and the bigotry now.
I'm not trying to dogpile on you here, but when people agree with bigoted positions it can come across as being a bigot. Not that I'm saying you are, it's just really hard to separate the two, especially in chat discussions.
sirlynchmob wrote: every argument used to prevent interracial marriages is now being used to prevent same sex marriages
I don't think so, although I don't know every single argument against miscegenation that was ever made. But I think the crucial one against gay marriage, not at all relevant to interracial marriage, is that actually prior definitions of marriage, broadly speaking, in terms of what you actually found in, say, ecclesiastical law, did not have anything to say about the race of the parties (makes sense considering race as understood in the context of US opposition to interracial marriage was only invented in the 18th-20th centuries), whereas the sex/gender of the parties was.
@IronCaptain
I find that someone genuinely interested in discussion is prepared to accept that the other people involved fall somewhere between zealous agreement with every point he makes on the one hand and being an evil __ist/___phobic moron on the other. And if those are the only options he offers, he's probably wasting your time. On that note, I'm going to go spend my time more usefully.
It's not even close but the whole exercise is irrelevant because the only issue is whether opposing gay marriage necessarily and unquestionably entail hating gay people. If you claim it does you set up the false dichotomy, you either support gay marriage or you hate gay people.
I have no choice but to disagree. It's very close, and while nuance can make all the difference in the world people I find struggle with nuance and it's not even remotely irrelevant. If anything it gets to the heart of why the issue is so contentious. What entails "hate" is not clear. it is nebulous.
sirlynchmob wrote: every argument used to prevent interracial marriages is now being used to prevent same sex marriages
I don't think so, although I don't know every single argument against miscegenation that was ever made. But I think the crucial one against gay marriage, not at all relevant to interracial marriage, is that actually prior definitions of marriage, broadly speaking, in terms of what you actually found in, say, ecclesiastical law, did not have anything to say about the race of the parties (makes sense considering race as understood in the context of US opposition to interracial marriage was only invented in the 18th-20th centuries), whereas the sex/gender of the parties was.
1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."
They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.
sounds like everything said about same sex marriages to me. But feel free to look for more, they're easy to find.
Every argument against gay marriage is either open hatred, or so obviously absurd that the only way any person could possibly believe it is if they hate gay people and just want a polite excuse to talk about in public.
That is absolute nonsense. In fact, virtually all claims of the structure "every X is Y" generally come down to just being a load of prejudiced nonsense.
To proof this claim you would need to list every single argument against gay marriage ever made in the history of man, and then prove for every single argument that it is either open hatred or absurd. Do you now see why this claim of yours is untenable?
What you are saying is almost identical in form to the argument that "I don't hate black people, I just think that the races shouldn't mix" and similar excuses for racism and segregation. We don't hesitate to label that racism and hatred, so why should we hesitate when the same kind of argument is applied to gay people?
That is a red herring. Homosexuality and race are not the same thing, they are very much different issues.
Manchu wrote: I don't think you understand hypocrisy. What I'm criticizing is threatening slander as part of a rhetorical trap, which is bullying.
You're criticizing it by giving it the exact same kind of label that you object to having applied to yourself. And it isn't a "rhetorical trap" to criticize you just because you don't like the conclusions people draw from that criticism.
No, the issue of marriage between a man and woman of any race or races is not the same thing as the issue of marriage between two people of the same sex, self-evidently. The question of "form" is irrelevant, you (and LoH) are just trying to tar me with the racist brush.
No, of course it isn't the same, that's why I said the argumenst are almost identical in form, not exactly the same. And sorry if you don't like being associated with racists, but maybe you should stop using their arguments? The sole objection to the comparison between gay marriage and racism/interracial marriage seems to be "I don't want to be called a racist", not any meaningful differences between the two situations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: That is absolute nonsense. In fact, virtually all claims of the structure "every X is Y" generally come down to just being a load of prejudiced nonsense.
To proof this claim you would need to list every single argument against gay marriage ever made in the history of man, and then prove for every single argument that it is either open hatred or absurd. Do you now see why this claim of yours is untenable?
Do you really think that nitpicking the ultra-literal definition of "every argument" is a persuasive argument? I suppose I will concede that it is theoretically possible that someone, somewhere in the world once made an argument that isn't either open hatred or absurd, but can we limit this discussion to the arguments that have actually been part of the political debate over gay marriage?
That is a red herring. Homosexuality and race are not the same thing, they are very much different issues.
Why? Do you actually have an argument for why they are different, besides "I don't like being associated with racists"?
Tactical_Spam wrote: Man, I could have sworn Iron Captain said something about repeatedly comparing same sex marriage to interracial marriage... I wonder what that was...
Every argument against gay marriage is either open hatred, or so obviously absurd that the only way any person could possibly believe it is if they hate gay people and just want a polite excuse to talk about in public.
That is absolute nonsense. In fact, virtually all claims of the structure "every X is Y" generally come down to just being a load of prejudiced nonsense.
To proof this claim you would need to list every single argument against gay marriage ever made in the history of man, and then prove for every single argument that it is either open hatred or absurd. Do you now see why this claim of yours is untenable?
What you are saying is almost identical in form to the argument that "I don't hate black people, I just think that the races shouldn't mix" and similar excuses for racism and segregation. We don't hesitate to label that racism and hatred, so why should we hesitate when the same kind of argument is applied to gay people?
That is a red herring. Homosexuality and race are not the same thing, they are very much different issues.
Except we know the main arguments against both, and while they are their own marriage issues, the people opposing both had a whole lot in common. Note the common source used against both.
We can easily figure out the basis of their positions, it's not at all untenable.
a) open hatred/bigotry
b) group think, going along with the hatred to fit in, or they were raised by group A so they blindly go along with it, or just to lazy to think about why their siding with bigots
c) indifference, they don't care about the issue as it doesn't directly affect them so they remain quiet on the issue.
it's somewhere in the indifference area that you would start to see people who would agree with the egalitarian view, but as they say, all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing. But those in direct opposition towards equality are somewhere down the slope towards bigotry, I'd imagine it's a type of bell curve if we plotted it out.
"Due to my belief system, I find homosexual marriage to be wrong or not a actual marriage and should not be classified as such"
Is how I would interpret it which is fine, people are entitled to their opinions and beliefs. Now if it was more like "Due to my belief system, I find homosexual marriage to be wrong and anyone that promotes or participates in it should -Insert bad things here- " then its not okay.
OK, event though this has gone totally off the rails, Ill play. I am opposed to you going to church. I do not think religion is a good thing. I fail to recognize your right to go to church.
Now from your point of view as a catholic, seems to be a bit of malice there doesn't it. Now look at this.
I am opposed to same sex marriage. I do not think same sex marriage is a good thing. I fail to recognize your right to marry your loved one.
Both simply interchange religion and same sex marriage. If you were hearing how a large group of influential people were constantly criticizing your right to go to church, making laws against it you might start looking at this issue a little differently. I am pretty sure, knowing how religion works, there would even start to be some form of insurgency forming in the U.S.
It is a matter of separating your religions views with what is legally right. If it is legally right, then its ok. In fact there is nothing to be said by anyone opposed outside of the walls of your church, because you are then in opposition, to the rights, of a group of people to act, what they can do, how they can live their lives. This goes in direct opposition of the rights I have sworn to defend, and continue to do so.
BLUFF, when someone hears you don't agree with their standpoint, there can usually be a civility and an understanding reached, because in the end who cares.
When someone hears you do not believe they should be able to, or have their marriage recognized, it is entirely a different thing and will usually be met with a bit of misbelief that you could "hate" this action and people doing it. It is not a far stretch or long reach to get this impression. so do not be mad when you are labeled as intolerant for taking this view. Accept that this is an intolerant view, just as you expect them to accept your view.
Without reading the rest of the thread which I imagine is a flame war I am answering only the OP and will not be responding further. Been trying to stay out of these threads as I get pissed off about them easily.
"I do not believe in gay marriage." is not a bigoted statement in itself. Actually not accepting your co-workers belief is bigotry on your part. People are allowed to believe what they believe. Now if they were actively being slanderous about it then yes, you can throw out the B word. We live in a country where each of us has a say on how we want the country to be run and look like. Usually the majority wins, in this case it has not, the silent majority really didn't care enough to fight and the loud minority with Hollywood as its propaganda machine won and now we have gay marriage. Does not affect the marriage to my wife one way or the other and that's kind of how most people I know feel even if they are against it and thus isn't worth fighting it. Note at the time the fight was going on, they kept trumpeting a stat that the majority of Americans agreed with it. Well come to find out, the guy who did the research and came up with the stat purposely fudged the numbers in his favor. That man was castigated and will never work in academia again, that part wasn't publicized. In that community, his name is right up there with the guy who said vaccines cause autism and made up a study about it. My wife's career is with dealing with statistical research and while she does believe in gay marriage as does most of the ivory tower, the academic world takes number doctoring fanatically seriously.
Outside of a civilized debate, if he was trying to ram his opinion down your throat, telling you "you were wrong" then yes that's going a bit far. On the same token, trying to force your opinion down his throat and calling him names you would be wrong as well. Everyone is allowed an opinion even if you disagree with it, something the intolerant left needs to learn.
Iron_Captain wrote: That is absolute nonsense. In fact, virtually all claims of the structure "every X is Y" generally come down to just being a load of prejudiced nonsense.
To proof this claim you would need to list every single argument against gay marriage ever made in the history of man, and then prove for every single argument that it is either open hatred or absurd. Do you now see why this claim of yours is untenable?
Do you really think that nitpicking the ultra-literal definition of "every argument" is a persuasive argument?
Yes, because that was you claimed. If that wasn't what you wanted to claim, then you should not have said it.
Peregrine wrote: I suppose I will concede that it is theoretically possible that someone, somewhere in the world once made an argument that isn't either open hatred or absurd, but can we limit this discussion to the arguments that have actually been part of the political debate over gay marriage?
We can, but you'd still need to proof that. Not all arguments against gay marriage are born from hatred. Many are born from discomfort, concern or simply a different system of normative values than yours.
Take Pope Francis for example. He opposes gay marriage, but he most certainly does not hate gay people or anything. Can you proof that Francis' arguments are born from hatred?
http://irishcatholic.ie/article/same-sex-marriage-debate-5
That is a red herring. Homosexuality and race are not the same thing, they are very much different issues.
Why? Do you actually have an argument for why they are different, besides "I don't like being associated with racists"?
Yes. The argument is really simple.
Race and sex are not the same thing. The circumstances and possible moral objections for marriage in relation to race and marriage in relation to sex are completely different. There is no real, significant difference between people of different race. Therefore there is no possible rational argument to be made against interracial marriage. Because a black man is fundamentally the same as a white man and a black woman is fundamentally the same as a white woman, interracial marriage is not any different from a not-interracial marriage. Between sexes on the other hand there is huge difference. Man and woman are very different. A marriage between a man and woman therefore is something fundamentally different than a marriage between two men or a marriage between two women.
I understood Manchu like that: You can find that something is "wrong", in the meaning of "going against the rules that I chose to live by".
That does not mean "I hate it".
It just means "for all people following my rules, or even only for myself, this is something that should not be done, i.e. I or we should not do that."
There is not necessarily a "THEY should not do that".
I think, in theory, it should be ok for a religious cult to say "we shall only religiously wed people if they adhere to our rules". As long as there is no discrimination in the socio-political, public sphere.The problem is: where does the private/religious end and the public start? And no proper religion can accept a limitation to the private.
And what about members of the cult who do not agree with the (full) dogma? Is religious dogma fixed or can it be fixed?
How can humans cope with that dilemma? With tolerance, common sense and pragmatism, i.e. with an agreement to disagree and not get all fussy about it.
Obviously, most people who are against gay marriage are anti-gay, i.e. they think it is wrong (for whichever reasons), they are intolerant to gayness and they think they are entitled to decide in that matter.
Still, there is a possibility that someone said "your style of life is your choice and I will not interfere with it" but think to himself "this is not how I would want to live my life".
Tolerance is not accepting things you agree with but accepting things you do NOT agree with (but that do not hurt other people or yourself either).
Obviously again, since gay marriage by definition does not hurt anyone else directly by any meaningful definition, the moral burden of tolerance is on the others.
Col. Dash wrote: Without reading the rest of the thread which I imagine is a flame war I am answering only the OP and will not be responding further. Been trying to stay out of these threads as I get pissed off about them easily.
"I do not believe in gay marriage." is not a bigoted statement in itself. Actually not accepting your co-workers belief is bigotry on your part. People are allowed to believe what they believe. Now if they were actively being slanderous about it then yes, you can throw out the B word. We live in a country where each of us has a say on how we want the country to be run and look like. Usually the majority wins, in this case it has not, the silent majority really didn't care enough to fight and the loud minority with Hollywood as its propaganda machine won and now we have gay marriage. Does not affect the marriage to my wife one way or the other and that's kind of how most people I know feel even if they are against it and thus isn't worth fighting it. Note at the time the fight was going on, they kept trumpeting a stat that the majority of Americans agreed with it. Well come to find out, the guy who did the research and came up with the stat purposely fudged the numbers in his favor. That man was castigated and will never work in academia again, that part wasn't publicized. In that community, his name is right up there with the guy who said vaccines cause autism and made up a study about it. My wife's career is with dealing with statistical research and while she does believe in gay marriage as does most of the ivory tower, the academic world takes number doctoring fanatically seriously.
Outside of a civilized debate, if he was trying to ram his opinion down your throat, telling you "you were wrong" then yes that's going a bit far. On the same token, trying to force your opinion down his throat and calling him names you would be wrong as well. Everyone is allowed an opinion even if you disagree with it, something the intolerant left needs to learn.
So what guy did the research? without a name it seems highly doubtful just one man fudged the numbers. With all the polls being ran it is entirely likely that the majority of americans actually agreed with it and there was no need to fudge the numbers.
Yes the majority usually wins, that is why we have courts. Far to often the majority has tried to enact laws to discriminate against minorities.
Iron_Captain wrote: That is absolute nonsense. In fact, virtually all claims of the structure "every X is Y" generally come down to just being a load of prejudiced nonsense.
To proof this claim you would need to list every single argument against gay marriage ever made in the history of man, and then prove for every single argument that it is either open hatred or absurd. Do you now see why this claim of yours is untenable?
Do you really think that nitpicking the ultra-literal definition of "every argument" is a persuasive argument?
Yes, because that was you claimed. If that wasn't what you wanted to claim, then you should not have said it.
Peregrine wrote: I suppose I will concede that it is theoretically possible that someone, somewhere in the world once made an argument that isn't either open hatred or absurd, but can we limit this discussion to the arguments that have actually been part of the political debate over gay marriage?
We can, but you'd still need to proof that. Not all arguments against gay marriage are born from hatred. Many are born from discomfort, concern or simply a different system of normative values than yours.
Take Pope Francis for example. He opposes gay marriage, but he most certainly does not hate gay people or anything. Can you proof that Francis' arguments are born from hatred?
http://irishcatholic.ie/article/same-sex-marriage-debate-5
That is a red herring. Homosexuality and race are not the same thing, they are very much different issues.
Why? Do you actually have an argument for why they are different, besides "I don't like being associated with racists"?
Yes. The argument is really simple.
Race and sex are not the same thing. The circumstances and possible moral objections for marriage in relation to race and marriage in relation to sex are completely different. There is no real, significant difference between people of different race. Therefore there is no possible rational argument to be made against interracial marriage. Because a black man is fundamentally the same as a white man and a black woman is fundamentally the same as a white woman, interracial marriage is not any different from a not-interracial marriage. Between sexes on the other hand there is huge difference. Man and woman are very different. A marriage between a man and woman therefore is something fundamentally different than a marriage between two men or a marriage between two women.
You are not getting the point. The point was not "sex and race are the same".
The point was "the argumentative structure / logic of people opposed to same-sex marriage is similar to those who oppose(d) interracial marriage".
I.e. people claiming that it was unnatural, against their belief and leading to moral bancruptcy of society, that it was leftist ideas destroying the moral foundations, etc pp.
There are no scientific reasons against one or the other. There are only moral (or moralistic) reasons for or against it.
redleger wrote: I am opposed to you going to church. I do not think religion is a good thing. I fail to recognize your right to go to church.
TBH I can imagine non-hateful motivations for that position. But even so - it's the wrong analogy. The key issue is legal rights, not private relationships. So a correct analogy would be, for example: "I am opposed to churches having tax exempt status." And that position surely does not require a hateful motivation.
treslibras wrote: There is not necessarily a "THEY should not do that".
When we're talking about the religious side of things, yes that accurately reflects my views except that I would go so far as to say, well even if my co-religionist wants to do XYZ, fine - but don't expect the community of all the faithful to validate that. Personally, I have no interest in judging anyone's "sins"; that's solely a matter of their conscience, so far as I'm concerned, not to mention far beyond my capacity. But - when it comes to the realm of politics and creating and expanding legal rights, that's where things become a matter of concern for the society at large.
treslibras wrote: The point was "the argumentative structure / logic of people opposed to same-sex marriage is similar to those who oppose(d) interracial marriage".
No - the point is an ad hominem attack. Here's another example: "Peregrine argues like a Nazi and if he doesn't like being associated with Nazis then he shouldn't make the same kinds of arguments." See, the point of this kind of rhetoric is to discredit the character of the poster rather than the substance of their posts. Notice the same posters who use that tactic also like the "unless you agree with me on X, you are a bigot" tactic.
redleger wrote: I am opposed to you going to church. I do not think religion is a good thing. I fail to recognize your right to go to church.
TBH I can imagine non-hateful motivations for that position. But even so - it's the wrong analogy. The key issue is legal rights, not private relationships. So a correct analogy would be, for example: "I am opposed to churches having tax exempt status." And that position surely does not require a hateful motivation.
treslibras wrote: There is not necessarily a "THEY should not do that".
When we're talking about the religious side of things, yes that accurately reflects my views except that I would go so far as to say, well even if my co-religionist wants to do XYZ, fine - but don't expect the community of all the faithful to validate that. Personally, I have no interest in judging anyone's "sins"; that's solely a matter of their conscience, so far as I'm concerned, not to mention enormously complicated. When it comes to the realm of politics and creating and expanding legal rights, however, that's where things become a matter of concern for the society at large.
treslibras wrote: The point was "the argumentative structure / logic of people opposed to same-sex marriage is similar to those who oppose(d) interracial marriage".
No - the point is an ad hominem attack. Here's another example: "Peregrine argues like a Nazi and if he doesn't like being associated with Nazis then he shouldn't make the same kinds of arguments." See, the point of this kind of rhetoric is to discredit the character of the poster rather than the substance of their posts. Notice the same posters who use that tactic also like the "unless you agree with me on X, you are a bigot" tactic.
except no legal rights were created nor expanded. That's a lie known bigots use to deny rights to others. This is where I start to suspect your motives for your position. People have the legal right to get married, no new rights were created nor expanded.
for your nazi example the proper analogy would be "X doesn't think he's a nazi, he just quotes mien kamph as justification for his ideas." While X might not be speaking from a position of hatred, it's does call into question the motives by quoting hitler.
Yes I would consider him bigoted. He is really saying I don't like Gay people in a indirect sort of way. LGBT is the new scapegoat for what's wrong with society.
In another generation people won't care as much. Might as well say "I don't believe in multi-racial marriage" as people said two generations ago or "I don't believe in non-segratated schools" as my grandparents generation said.
redleger wrote: I am opposed to you going to church. I do not think religion is a good thing. I fail to recognize your right to go to church.
TBH I can imagine non-hateful motivations for that position. But even so - it's the wrong analogy. The key issue is legal rights, not private relationships. So a correct analogy would be, for example: "I am opposed to churches having tax exempt status." And that position surely does not require a hateful motivation.
you mean True, same sex couples were being discriminated against just like multi racial couples were just a few years ago. Did allowing interracial couples to marry create a new legal right?
No, as an american, you have the right to marry, even if you drink pepsi.
That's incorrect. But I can understand your confusion (considering the Obergefell majority opinion). The issue was never quite a "right to marry" (as opposed to in the case of anti-miscegenation laws) - it has always been about the legal definition of marriage and who benefits from the legal rights that follow from being married. The legal term is "element" - that is, the legally required factors. Elementally, marriage formerly was between a man and a woman only. That is no longer the case, thereby expanding who may benefit from the legal rights of being married.
Manchu wrote: That's incorrect. But I can understand your confusion (considering the Obergefell majority opinion). The issue was never quite a "right to marry" (as opposed to in the case of anti-miscegenation laws) - it has always been about the legal definition of marriage and who benefits from the legal rights that follow from being married. The legal term is "element" - that is, the legally required factors. Elementally, marriage formerly was between a man and a woman only. That is no longer the case, thereby expanding who may benefit from the legal rights of being married.
It has always been about the right to marry.
The legal term was exclusionary, hence unconstitutional
granting benefits to couple A, and not couple B is discriminatory.
all they did was drop the exclusionary text, so all couples can exercise their right to marry.
that didn't expand the rights, it stopped denying the right to same sex couples. You can view that as expanding, but that's not what happened. Everyone has the right to marry, to deny that right based on some arbitrary criteria (like race or sex) is unconstitutional.
No, that is still incorrect. Marriage as a legal status under the common law comprehensively requires certain elements. Generally speaking, those elements are present in an interracial marriage between a man and a woman who are both legally able to consent, and in fact do so, and who are not related within the prohibited degree of consanguinity. Certain laws were enacted to criminalize certain marriages on the basis of preventing miscegenation. The case of gay marriage is different - one of the necessary elements (that the marriage be between a man and a woman) is not present. In order to expand marriage to same-sex couples, the legal definition of marriage needed to be changed. That is not what anti-miscegenation laws accomplished; to the contrary, they criminalized what would otherwise be legal marriages. The difference comes down to an illegal marriage on the one hand and something not being a marriage on the other.
Iron_Captain wrote: Man and woman are very different. A marriage between a man and woman therefore is something fundamentally different than a marriage between two men or a marriage between two women.
Marriage is the joining of people into a single legal entity. The gender of the people involved makes absolutely no difference to the process, or to the ongoing maintenance of the partnership.
The only reason that a marriage between a same-sex couple and a male/female couple is any different is because an arbitrary law says so.
By "arbitrary" - do you mean, "for no reason that I can/will recognize"?
I mean - that's potentially a fine argument ... but of course, others can and do recognize reasons why the definition of marriage is not arbitrary. What I'm getting at is, as throughout the entire thread, is that reasonable people of good will can differ on these issues. It doesn't have to be a conflict between those who "want to destroy morality" against those who "hate gay people."
By "arbitrary" - do you mean, "for no reason that I can/will recognize"?
Pretty much, yes.
Nobody here or elsewhere has provided a reasonable explanation for why the requirements of any given religion should apply to those who don't follow that religion, nor for why same sex couples should be treated any differently by the law than anybody else.
Manchu wrote: By "arbitrary" - do you mean, "for no reason that I can/will recognize"?
For no better reason than the previous laws requiring the married couple to have the same race. Neither is an essential requirement for the marriage to function, it's something added on to satisfy moral beliefs about who should be allowed to marry.
Iron_Captain wrote: Man and woman are very different. A marriage between a man and woman therefore is something fundamentally different than a marriage between two men or a marriage between two women.
Marriage is the joining of people into a single legal entity. The gender of the people involved makes absolutely no difference to the process, or to the ongoing maintenance of the partnership.
The only reason that a marriage between a same-sex couple and a male/female couple is any different is because an arbitrary law says so.
The (legal) definition of marriage has always been a union between man and woman. This is true for pretty much every law or custom regarding marriage since the first known one until the present day. It is only in the past few years that in a number of countries this (legal) definition has changed to include all people regardless of sex.
The reason that a marriage between a same-sex couple and a different-sex couple is different is not because of an arbitray law, but because of milennia of social traditions and customs.
Manchu wrote: No - the point is an ad hominem attack. Here's another example: "Peregrine argues like a Nazi and if he doesn't like being associated with Nazis then he shouldn't make the same kinds of arguments." See, the point of this kind of rhetoric is to discredit the character of the poster rather than the substance of their posts. Notice the same posters who use that tactic also like the "unless you agree with me on X, you are a bigot" tactic.
That's a terrible analogy because you haven't said anything about why my arguments are Nazi-like, or even defined what "argues like a Nazi" means. There's no connection between the two, aside from your desire to say "you're a Nazi". There is, on the other hand, a connection between arguments against gay marriage and arguments against interracial marriage, and the comparison makes sense as more than a lazy "you're a racist" insult.
insaniak wrote: Nobody here or elsewhere has provided a reasonable explanation for why the requirements of any given religion should apply to those who don't follow that religion, nor for why same sex couples should be treated any differently by the law than anybody else.
That's not the topic. The topic is, can "I oppose gay marriage" be something other than a statement of hatred. So, you just made the argument, the former legal definition of marriage arbitrarily excludes same-sex couples and should be changed to include them. I don't assign any malice or hatred to your perspective that the definition is at least partially arbitrary - even despite the fact that I disagree with that argument. And neither does my disagreement necessarily entail any malice or hatred.
Peregrine wrote: you haven't said anything about why my arguments are Nazi-like
I thought you would have connected the dots. Nazis use fallacious arguments to bully and slander their opponents. You do the same. Following through with your ad hominem argument implicitly calling me a racist, you should therefore be associated with Nazis.
Iron_Captain wrote: The reason that a marriage between a same-sex couple and a different-sex couple is different is not because of an arbitray law, but because of milennia of social traditions and customs.
The trick is, some people blankly assume that "culture" and "values" are arbitrary (not even realizing that the assumption is a cultural value judgement). But the point is, they aren't necessarily making that assumption from hate anymore than those who disagree with them do so out of hate.
Hey you know what would be cool, if we didn't call each other nazis or inferring association (soupnazis maybe but thats a different topic). We can discuss the topic without losing our minds no?
When Frazzled is the voice of reason, something is wrong...
The reason that a marriage between a same-sex couple and a different-sex couple is different is not because of an arbitray law, but because of milennia of social traditions and customs.
Sure. But 'We've done it this way for a long time' is not a valid reason by itself for insisting that others follow your arbitrary rule.
Manchu wrote: And neither does my disagreement necessarily entail any malice or hatred.
Except it does, because there is no legitimate argument against gay marriage that doesn't include malice or hatred. Every argument presented is either open hatred ("GOD WILL BURN THIS SINFUL COUNTRY!!!!") or so obviously absurd that it can only be a flimsy pretense of politeness covering up the real reasons ("MARRIAGE IS ABOUT CHILDREN AND GAY COUPLES CAN'T MAKE CHILDREN"). You can say "it's not hatred" all you like, but in the end it comes down to "I don't like gay people and don't want them using 'my' label".
I thought you would have connected the dots. Nazis use fallacious arguments to bully and slander their opponents. You do the same. Following through with your ad hominem argument implicitly calling me a racist, you should therefore be associated with Nazis.
Calling it "bullying" over and over again doesn't make your claim true.
Peregrine wrote: Every argument presented is either open hatred ... or so obviously absurd that it can only be a flimsy pretense of politeness covering up the real reasons ...
Peregrine wrote: Calling it "bullying" over and over again doesn't make your claim true.
The same old conclusory declarations. My mistake for humouring you.
The reason that a marriage between a same-sex couple and a different-sex couple is different is not because of an arbitray law, but because of milennia of social traditions and customs.
Sure. But 'We've done it this way for a long time' is not a valid reason by itself for insisting that others follow your arbitrary rule.
No, and I am not saying it is. I am merely saying that it is reason for the fact that we have these "arbitrary" rules. The rules come from the tradition, not the other way around.
insaniak wrote:But 'We've done it this way for a long time' is not a valid reason by itself for insisting that others follow your arbitrary rule.
No, and I am not saying it is. I am merely saying that it is reason for the fact that we have these "arbitrary" rules.
Good distinction in two ways: Most obviously, the law in this case was not arbitrary. More importantly, the argument was never really, we should do X because we have always done X. Rather, it's more like, the reasons that we have done X are still valid today. Now, whether someone finds that argument to be persuasive or not is one issue - but that's not the issue of this thread. The issue is, simply taking that position is not the same thing as hating gay people.
insaniak wrote:But 'We've done it this way for a long time' is not a valid reason by itself for insisting that others follow your arbitrary rule.
No, and I am not saying it is. I am merely saying that it is reason for the fact that we have these "arbitrary" rules.
Good distinction in two ways: Most obviously, the law in this case was not arbitrary. More importantly, the argument was never really, we should do X because we have always done X. Rather, it's more like, the reasons that we have done X are still valid today. Now, whether someone finds that argument to be persuasive or not is one issue - but that's not the issue of this thread. The issue is, simply taking that position is not the same thing as hating gay people.
Manchu, I really don't understand what you're arguing. "The reasons we have done X are still valid today"? What reasons are those, assuming we're still talking about gay marriage? And I really have to disagree with your last statement. I've met plenty of people who think like that, hence the phrase "Hate the sin, not the sinner", and I think it's just rather asinine. Sure, you can not agree with gay marriage and not hate gay people, but that makes me inclined to think that you're against something because it's different and non-traditional.
As an instructor I deny Trainees certain normal rights everyday. I do so because that is my job, within local regulations, service wide regulations, and policy. All of the above can be contributed too either safety and well being of said trainees, or to good order and discipline, based on the job at hand. A job like no other in civilian life. I feel no malice in enforcing these rules, because that is my job, and I understand why they are in place. Sometimes I have to enforce a stupid rule, and I feel gakky about it, but I still do it because its my job. I will speak my peace, say its not smart to do so, but at the end of the day, I lose(usually).
There is no public safety issue with same gender marriage, there is no other explanation that I have heard for the denial of same gender marriage within this thread that is other than an opinion that it is wrong. That same is true for those that make the laws. They quote a religious text, say it is against their beliefs and force that belief on the masses. That is where a lot of the anger comes from. Now to hear I don't believe in gay marriage, as it is understood(since I know the person understands that it does exist) is a kin to saying I don't like what your doing, I oppose it. Fine and dandy, he can't stop it. But the same politician saying I don't believe in same gender marriage can force that opinion on the masses and there for is oppressive. There is no real reason given to not allow it. I know its legal now, but how many years did it take to make it wrong to use the N word in the south. I actually still here it more than I would like. I hear it when I go home because no one says anything about it. Allowing rhetoric does damage society, whether you want to believe it or not.
I have a hard time understanding how I don't believe in gay marriage doesn't equate to an exclusionary stance on someone's rights, vs I don't believe gay marriage is for me, and there fore would not partake in such an activity.
jreilly89 wrote: Manchu, I really don't understand what you're arguing.
I have been arguing for exactly this point:
jreilly89 wrote: Sure, you can not agree with gay marriage and not hate gay people
I just brought up the hypothetical argument "the reasons for X are still valid" to distinguish it from the other hypothetical argument "we should do X because we have always done X." As to what the "reasons" in question are, there are probably a lot of different views, which are honestly off-topic here, except to the extent that they are not necessarily hateful. So my further argument along those lines has been, such arguments need not be hateful first and foremost because the object of the position is a set of legal rights rather than any personal relationship. It's totally possible to grant the legal rights at issue without changing the definition of marriage - precisely because marriage and the legal rights of married people are different things (one would think, obviously). There are people who believe that the relationship traditionally enshrined in marriage is the ideal building block of society and should be preserved as-such, regardless of the separate issue of who may enjoy what legal rights.* Saying that other arrangements are not ideal is not automatically saying you hate the people who might participate in such arrangements.
* I don't personally find the argument very convincing - if you have a "civil union" for same-sex couples that is legally equivalent to a marriage then why not just change the definition of marriage? But there are people who have a very "reverential" attitude toward civil law; I'm just not one of them - at least not in the sense that people seem to think government recognition gives a marriage some kind of validity that transcends the law. (Note that both people who support and people who oppose gay marriage sometimes have that attitude.)
Manchu wrote: Most obviously, the law in this case was not arbitrary.
It (arguably) wasn't arbitrary, in a time when everyone in our respective countries was just assumed to be some form of Christian.
It most certainly is by today's standards, where a growing proportion of the population of our countries populations is either atheist or coming to realise that the Church's stance on same-sex relationships is actually grounded far more in dark ages Europe's sensibilities rather than anything to do with the Bible.
More importantly, the argument was never really, we should do X because we have always done X. Rather, it's more like, the reasons that we have done X are still valid today.
Nope, that wasn't the argument being made.
The claim I was responding to was the one that marriage has 'always' legally involved a man and a woman. A claim that is easily disproved with even the most cursory inspection of history.
It may have 'always' been the case in modern western nations. But the concept of marriage considerably pre-dates both those nations and the formation of the Christian church.
* I don't personally find the argument very convincing - if you have a "civil union" for same-sex couples that is legally equivalent to a marriage then why not just change the definition of marriage? But there are people who have a very "reverential" attitude toward civil law; I'm just not one of them - at least not in the sense that people seem to think government recognition gives a marriage some kind of validity that transcends the law. (Note that both people who support and people who oppose gay marriage sometimes have that attitude.)
I've argued much as the same way to did here...
Remove the lexicon of 'marriage' from all official documentations and call everything 'civil union' on official records.
But, that was roundly criticized when folks says "but, you don't own the word... so, no we object to this plan".
All that says to me that the SSM supporters had no desire to compromise at all.
I understand arbitrary to mean illegitimate, a matter of whim, or without reason. The definition of marriage as between a woman and a man is none of those things, considering the relevant historical and cultural context.
So the natural retort is, the context can change/has changed and therefore so too should the definition change. Fine, that's off-topic. The question is whether the counter-argument, that the reasons that marriage has been defined for so long in a certain way are still valid (which I believe you mischaracterized as being an argument from inertia), is necessarily hateful. I am arguing that it is not necessarily hateful - apart from whether any given person does or doesn't find it persuasive.
Manchu wrote: I understand arbitrary to mean illegitimate, a matter of whim, or without reason. The definition of marriage as between a woman and a man is none of those things, considering the relevant historical and cultural context.
So the natural retort is, the context can change/has changed and therefore so too should the definition change. Fine, that's off-topic. The question is whether the counter-argument, that the reasons that marriage has been defined for so long in a certain way are still valid (which I believe you mischaracterized as being an argument from inertia), is necessarily hateful. I am arguing that it is not necessarily hateful - apart from whether any given person does or doesn't find it persuasive.
so if it's not an argument from inertia, would it then be an appeal to tradition?
True, it's not necessarily hateful, but it usually is. While it may not be a argument from hate, it's definitely a sexist attitude, trying to stick to and enforce archaic gender roles.
You are just using an arbitrary definition, especially considering marriages have been a wide variety of things over the ages. marriages to animals, cars, dolls, gods and dead people, and of course same sex couples. On a whim your church picked 1 man/women going against their own beliefs and what the bible states are legitimate marriages.
You want to be seen as a full equal human... I want to see you as property... Let's compromise... You are 3/5th of a person! Anyone who refuses to compromise is unreasonable!
'Tradition' and appealing to 'history' is the same reason people mutilate their infants because someone hundreds of years ago thought it stopped masturbation and reduced sexual urges. Now it is a 'tradition'. So while the people doing an action today may think their position has no 'hate' in it, often it is rooted in an ignorant or hateful origin. Unwillingness to re-evaluate those actions is dangerous.
whembly wrote: All that says to me that the SSM supporters had no desire to compromise at all.
You're right, they have no desire to compromise. But this get backs to my point way earlier in the thread – that this is a debate between people who see this as an abstract principle, and people who it affects directly, on a personal level.
For people opposed to gay marriage the issue is entirely abstract, they can negotiate on something like allowing some rights, while thinking they get something vague like a word to be kept on their side. They have nothing from their personal lives at stake. But for people who are trying to get equal acceptance from the law, who have been directly affected by not just marriage inequality, but a long history of both legal and social discrimination, then the idea of sitting down to negotiate to respect the other side is obviously pretty unacceptable.
There’s also another simple reason – it is in the best interests of the losing side to gain a negotiated peace, but it’s a nonsense to expect it from a side on the verge of total victory. No-one expected the Russians to knock on Hitler’s bunker, seeing if he’d like to negotiate a peace deal with them. But a negotiated peace was attempted by both sides, in 1943 when both sides were unsure if they were going to win. If the conservative forces wanted a compromise on this, then they should have tried that in the 1990s, when this issue was still up in the air.
Fact: it doesn't matter what's inside anyones head, as long as it doesn't affect the way other people are treated.
Irony: when someone complaining that you cannot have a private thought in your head without it causing you to treat others like crap, or causing you to force others to believe the same thing as you, is guildy of forcing his own belief on others and treating them like crap.
I'm glad that my bigoted opinions allow me to treat others better than people who are right.
I was once the same way. I was an donkey-cave who knew he was right and who alway tried to force his views on others. I learned that my beliefs are mine alone and only shape the way I live my own life.
I still have the same personal belief about marriage as a covenant between God/man/woman. I had the same belief when I voted in favor of the constitutional ban on SSM in Oklahoma, and I had the same belief when I celebrated the SCOTUS ruling on SSM, and I had the same belief when I saw our email at work that with the repeal of the DOMA we will have open enrollment for everyone in a SSM, and I had the same belief when I printed out that email and handed it to my gay coworker and watched him cry in happyness because he can add his husband to his insurance.
My belief never changed, I just learned that my belief dictate how I lead my life. They don't get to dictate how other people live their life.
I believe drugs are bad and doing them is wrong, I favor legalization of soft drugs and criminal justice reform.
I believe abortion is wrong, and I am pro-choice and favor safe and legal access to abortions.
Many of us bigoted people have learned that our bigotness only gets to dictate our own behavior, not the behavior of those around us.
Someday every bigoted person will figure that out, or at least I hope so.
Maybe someday the people with the right thoughts in their head will figure out how to treat others as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Fact: if you're participating in a discussion thread about your thoughts then it's no longer a private thought in your head.
Fact: knowing my thoughts doesn't equal me forcing anybody to agree with them or forcing anyone to follow them. I was adding an answer to the general question of "does having a belief make someone a bad person" by adding my perspective of "a belief only matters if you let it affect the way you interact with people" and giving my own belief and the evolution of my interactions with others as an example.
The only person doing everything you are complaining about in this thread is you, and it's hilarious.
Iron_Captain wrote: Man and woman are very different. A marriage between a man and woman therefore is something fundamentally different than a marriage between two men or a marriage between two women.
Marriage is the joining of people into a single legal entity. The gender of the people involved makes absolutely no difference to the process, or to the ongoing maintenance of the partnership.
The only reason that a marriage between a same-sex couple and a male/female couple is any different is because an arbitrary law says so.
The (legal) definition of marriage has always been a union between man and woman. This is true for pretty much every law or custom regarding marriage since the first known one until the present day. It is only in the past few years that in a number of countries this (legal) definition has changed to include all people regardless of sex.
The reason that a marriage between a same-sex couple and a different-sex couple is different is not because of an arbitray law, but because of milennia of social traditions and customs.
So if those tradition and customs change, that means it is okay for same sex marriage in the current era, except in those countries that have values that maybe considered backwards by others.
Iron_Captain wrote: Man and woman are very different. A marriage between a man and woman therefore is something fundamentally different than a marriage between two men or a marriage between two women.
Marriage is the joining of people into a single legal entity. The gender of the people involved makes absolutely no difference to the process, or to the ongoing maintenance of the partnership.
The only reason that a marriage between a same-sex couple and a male/female couple is any different is because an arbitrary law says so.
The (legal) definition of marriage has always been a union between man and woman. This is true for pretty much every law or custom regarding marriage since the first known one until the present day. It is only in the past few years that in a number of countries this (legal) definition has changed to include all people regardless of sex.
The reason that a marriage between a same-sex couple and a different-sex couple is different is not because of an arbitray law, but because of milennia of social traditions and customs.
So if those tradition and customs change, that means it is okay for same sex marriage in the current era, except in those countries that have values that maybe considered backwards by others.
As far as I am concerned, yes. I can't find any rational reason to be against gay marriage if there exists widespread support for it amongst the people. Culture, and traditions and customs with it, is always changing. Laws should change with it.
Also, I think it would be a good idea to seperate secular and religious marriages. Currently, in most of the Western world the state is the only one allowed to conduct marriages, and even religious marriages are conducted by the state. I think that this is the reason for a lot of opposition of religious people to gay marriage, as it means that a gay marriage will be exactly the same thing as their sacred religious marriage. Giving religious communities the legal power to conduct their own marriages would allow them to have their own seperate definition of marriage instead of forcing the government's definition down everyone's throat, which would do a lot to remove possible religious objections, I think. A lot of arguments I have seen from the religious corner come down to that gay marriage should be a seperate but equal thing next to "normal" marriage. So why not turn it around and have a religious marriage as a seperate thing next to "normal" marriage?
Iron_Captain wrote: Man and woman are very different. A marriage between a man and woman therefore is something fundamentally different than a marriage between two men or a marriage between two women.
Marriage is the joining of people into a single legal entity. The gender of the people involved makes absolutely no difference to the process, or to the ongoing maintenance of the partnership.
The only reason that a marriage between a same-sex couple and a male/female couple is any different is because an arbitrary law says so.
The (legal) definition of marriage has always been a union between man and woman. This is true for pretty much every law or custom regarding marriage since the first known one until the present day. It is only in the past few years that in a number of countries this (legal) definition has changed to include all people regardless of sex.
The reason that a marriage between a same-sex couple and a different-sex couple is different is not because of an arbitray law, but because of milennia of social traditions and customs.
So if those tradition and customs change, that means it is okay for same sex marriage in the current era, except in those countries that have values that maybe considered backwards by others.
As far as I am concerned, yes. I can't find any rational reason to be against gay marriage if there exists widespread support for it amongst the people. Culture, and traditions and customs with it, is always changing. Laws should change with it.
Also, I think it would be a good idea to seperate secular and religious marriages. Currently, in most of the Western world the state is the only one allowed to conduct marriages, and even religious marriages are conducted by the state. I think that this is the reason for a lot of opposition of religious people to gay marriage, as it means that a gay marriage will be exactly the same thing as their sacred religious marriage. Giving religious communities the legal power to conduct their own marriages would allow them to have their own seperate definition of marriage instead of forcing the government's definition down everyone's throat, which would do a lot to remove possible religious objections, I think. A lot of arguments I have seen from the religious corner come down to that gay marriage should be a seperate but equal thing next to "normal" marriage. So why not turn it around and have a religious marriage as a seperate thing next to "normal" marriage?
You can't paint with such a large brush though. A lot of churches support same sex marriages, and perform them. one church even stopped performing marriages until SSM were legalized. Seperate but equal never works, it's just a nice way to say discrimination.
redleger wrote: As an instructor I deny Trainees certain normal rights everyday. I do so because that is my job, within local regulations, service wide regulations, and policy. All of the above can be contributed too either safety and well being of said trainees, or to good order and discipline, based on the job at hand. A job like no other in civilian life. I feel no malice in enforcing these rules, because that is my job, and I understand why they are in place. Sometimes I have to enforce a stupid rule, and I feel gakky about it, but I still do it because its my job. I will speak my peace, say its not smart to do so, but at the end of the day, I lose(usually).
There is no public safety issue with same gender marriage, there is no other explanation that I have heard for the denial of same gender marriage within this thread that is other than an opinion that it is wrong. That same is true for those that make the laws. They quote a religious text, say it is against their beliefs and force that belief on the masses. That is where a lot of the anger comes from. Now to hear I don't believe in gay marriage, as it is understood(since I know the person understands that it does exist) is a kin to saying I don't like what your doing, I oppose it. Fine and dandy, he can't stop it. But the same politician saying I don't believe in same gender marriage can force that opinion on the masses and there for is oppressive. There is no real reason given to not allow it. I know its legal now, but how many years did it take to make it wrong to use the N word in the south. I actually still here it more than I would like. I hear it when I go home because no one says anything about it. Allowing rhetoric does damage society, whether you want to believe it or not.
I have a hard time understanding how I don't believe in gay marriage doesn't equate to an exclusionary stance on someone's rights, vs I don't believe gay marriage is for me, and there fore would not partake in such an activity.
I've read through just about all of this thread and I'm very surprised at some of the hardline stances taken by some posters here, who I thought were reasoning / educated people.
Firstly I am assuming that as a part of the training course on such a sensitive issue as to the perception of LGBT that there was no discussion on confidentiality and not discussing the contents of private conversations between individuals. And yet, here an individual who has sat through a training course on a subject that he doesn't agree with on a personal basis has opened up to you, a person he thinks of as a friend, that he has been uncomfortable with the subject of the course and your first course of action is to betray that confidence to the internet. Contentious issue aside, isn't that betrayal at odds with everything that was discussed?
redleger wrote: As an instructor I deny Trainees certain normal rights everyday. I do so because that is my job, within local regulations, service wide regulations, and policy. All of the above can be contributed too either safety and well being of said trainees, or to good order and discipline, based on the job at hand. A job like no other in civilian life. I feel no malice in enforcing these rules, because that is my job, and I understand why they are in place. Sometimes I have to enforce a stupid rule, and I feel gakky about it, but I still do it because its my job. I will speak my peace, say its not smart to do so, but at the end of the day, I lose(usually).
There is no public safety issue with same gender marriage, there is no other explanation that I have heard for the denial of same gender marriage within this thread that is other than an opinion that it is wrong. That same is true for those that make the laws. They quote a religious text, say it is against their beliefs and force that belief on the masses. That is where a lot of the anger comes from. Now to hear I don't believe in gay marriage, as it is understood(since I know the person understands that it does exist) is a kin to saying I don't like what your doing, I oppose it. Fine and dandy, he can't stop it. But the same politician saying I don't believe in same gender marriage can force that opinion on the masses and there for is oppressive. There is no real reason given to not allow it. I know its legal now, but how many years did it take to make it wrong to use the N word in the south. I actually still here it more than I would like. I hear it when I go home because no one says anything about it. Allowing rhetoric does damage society, whether you want to believe it or not.
I have a hard time understanding how I don't believe in gay marriage doesn't equate to an exclusionary stance on someone's rights, vs I don't believe gay marriage is for me, and there fore would not partake in such an activity.
I've read through just about all of this thread and I'm very surprised at some of the hardline stances taken by some posters here, who I thought were reasoning / educated people.
Firstly I am assuming that as a part of the training course on such a sensitive issue as to the perception of LGBT that there was no discussion on confidentiality and not discussing the contents of private conversations between individuals. And yet, here an individual who has sat through a training course on a subject that he doesn't agree with on a personal basis has opened up to you, a person he thinks of as a friend, that he has been uncomfortable with the subject of the course and your first course of action is to betray that confidence to the internet. Contentious issue aside, isn't that betrayal at odds with everything that was discussed?
Cheers
Andrew
He didn't state his location, base, military branch, or him or his buddy's name, so their anonymity is still safe. Second, if someone opened up to you that they were a closet racist (not calling OP's associate that, just making a case), is some harmless internet venting all that damnable?
redleger wrote: As an instructor I deny Trainees certain normal rights everyday. I do so because that is my job, within local regulations, service wide regulations, and policy. All of the above can be contributed too either safety and well being of said trainees, or to good order and discipline, based on the job at hand. A job like no other in civilian life. I feel no malice in enforcing these rules, because that is my job, and I understand why they are in place. Sometimes I have to enforce a stupid rule, and I feel gakky about it, but I still do it because its my job. I will speak my peace, say its not smart to do so, but at the end of the day, I lose(usually).
There is no public safety issue with same gender marriage, there is no other explanation that I have heard for the denial of same gender marriage within this thread that is other than an opinion that it is wrong. That same is true for those that make the laws. They quote a religious text, say it is against their beliefs and force that belief on the masses. That is where a lot of the anger comes from. Now to hear I don't believe in gay marriage, as it is understood(since I know the person understands that it does exist) is a kin to saying I don't like what your doing, I oppose it. Fine and dandy, he can't stop it. But the same politician saying I don't believe in same gender marriage can force that opinion on the masses and there for is oppressive. There is no real reason given to not allow it. I know its legal now, but how many years did it take to make it wrong to use the N word in the south. I actually still here it more than I would like. I hear it when I go home because no one says anything about it. Allowing rhetoric does damage society, whether you want to believe it or not.
I have a hard time understanding how I don't believe in gay marriage doesn't equate to an exclusionary stance on someone's rights, vs I don't believe gay marriage is for me, and there fore would not partake in such an activity.
I've read through just about all of this thread and I'm very surprised at some of the hardline stances taken by some posters here, who I thought were reasoning / educated people.
Firstly I am assuming that as a part of the training course on such a sensitive issue as to the perception of LGBT that there was no discussion on confidentiality and not discussing the contents of private conversations between individuals. And yet, here an individual who has sat through a training course on a subject that he doesn't agree with on a personal basis has opened up to you, a person he thinks of as a friend, that he has been uncomfortable with the subject of the course and your first course of action is to betray that confidence to the internet. Contentious issue aside, isn't that betrayal at odds with everything that was discussed?
Cheers
Andrew
The class it self was 45 min of death by powerpoint, with no discussion during the class itself. It is unfortunately the norm, when you have 20 hours worth of work to fit in a 16 hour day. it was also during our allotted meal time, since that is the only open space on the calendar daily. Secondly, he didn't confide, he made a statement about the class, and although his view point is ok, what upset me was he denial that his desire to deny that ability to same gender couples was not in any way discriminatory, after he back pedaled when I called him on how horrible that statement sounds. After I discussed it with him, he could not see how he could possibly be discriminatory. His statement was that the quote itself was not necessarily discriminatory. I have actually read and followed this whole thread, and while a bit derailed, I have read some good points, and acknowledged previously I can see how the statement itself may not be as malicious as I personally took it. However the statements after definitely were discriminatory. I just wanted to see if I was completely effing nuts to interpret it initially in the way I did.
I have given zero PII (personally identifiable information) and although you may deduce my basic location, I doubt there is much more you could gather to learn of this persons, or my identity. also in my country, generating discussion is a good thing. As I mentioned, the conversation has changed my mind. However other stances on the subject have not.
)
